1951-10-24

Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa):: I move:
That the following members comprise the special committee on the Dominion Elections Act as provided for in the resolution passed by the house on Friday, October 12,	1951:	Messrs. Applewhaite,
Argue, Balcer, Boisvert, Boucher, Cameron, Cannon, Cauchon, Churchill, Decore, Dewar, Fair, Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont), Fulford, Harris (Grey-Bruce), Hees, Hellyer, Herridge, Higgins, Jeffery, Kent, Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough), MacDougall, McWilliam, Murphy, Nowlan, Valois, Viau, Ward, White (Middlesex East), Wylie.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Fair:: _ 1. Has a survey been made during recent months in the various provinces to ascertain specific information regarding a group of persons known as the physically incapacitated?
2.	If so, what has been the result of such survey, particularly with respect to number in each province, the degree of disability and the number who are not capable of providing their own livelihood?
3.	What action has been or is being taken by the federal government to provide adequate pensions for these people?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	The national sickness survey has been in progress since last fall. Part of the information derived from this survey will give an estimate of the number of persons in Canada who have one or more permanent physical disabilities, as well as the extent and nature of such disabilities.
2.	As the national sickness survey will not be completed until the end of this year no final results will be available until after that time.
3.	As the joint parliamentary committee on old age security pointed out, in putting forward its proposals, "To the extent that the age of eligibility under old age assistance is lowered to 65 it can be considered as making a significant contribution to the security needs of the disabled members of the population in the upper age groups". Action was taken to implement this assistance scheme at the last session of parliament. It is estimated that 45,000 totally and permanently handicapped persons will be receiving financial
aid under the old age assistance scheme and the universal old age pension plan. .
Aside from disabled persons qualifying for other types of cash benefit, such as the old age assistance scheme, the universal old age pension plan, and war veterans' allowances, the three principal measures in terms of numbers covered and benefits paid are the federal pensions for disabled veterans, pensions for work-connected disability of either a temporary or permanent nature under the federal and provincial workmen's compensation schemes, and blind pensions under the federal-provincial scheme.
In addition, a number of disability payments are provided through a variety of provincial assistance programs. These include the provision of assistance under the provincial mothers' allowances programs where physical or mental incapacity prevents the husband from working, as well as, under provincial and/or local general assistance programs, financial aid for disabled persons in need. Newfoundland and Ontario have introduced incapacitation allowances as a means of ensuring financial assistance for certain disabled persons. Some provinces have made provision for special allowances for persons incapacitated by tuberculosis.
It is estimated that in 1950 over 325,000 persons were receiving disability cash benefits at a cost of about $110 million. If disabled persons qualifying for other types of cash benefit, such as old age pensions and war veterans allowances, were also included, the number would be substantially higher and the cost might be in the neighbourhood of $130 million.
In February this year a national conference on rehabilitation of disabled persons was convened by the federal government to discuss matters relating to the disabled in Canada. That conference recommended the establishment of a national advisory committee on rehabilitation and the federal government has taken action to set up this committee. It is anticipated that this committee will review all aspects of the needs of the disabled in Canada as a part of its work.
IMMIGRATION QUARTERS, HALIFAX, N. S.____
guards' salaries and service


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	How many guards were employed at immigration quarters, Halifax, during the first six months of 1950?

Questions
2.	What was the gross amount paid in salaries to such guards for this period?
3.	Were any guards released from service during the first six months of 1951?
4.	If so (a) what number; (b) what saving was made by such action?
5.	What was the gross amount of salaries, including overtime, paid to guards for the first six months of 1951?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1. 22.
2.	$22,165 (salaries only).
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Three. (b) For six-month period; $1,328 in salaries. This saving in salaries would have totalled $3,105 it they had been struck off strength on January 1, 1951.
5.	Salaries $25,296.50 Overtime 2,845.14
Total	$28,141.64
Note: Salaries were increased by approximately 12-5 per cent, effective December 1, 1950.


OLD AGE PENSIONS-EXPENDITURES ON ADVERTISING
Mr. Shaw:: What has been the total amount spent since July 1, 1951, by the Department of National Health and Welfare on radio, magazine, newspaper and other forms of advertising, respecting the payment by the government of Canada of universal old age pensions to those 70 years of age and over?


Mr. McCusker:: As some invoices have not yet been received, total expenditure figures are not available. However, commitments since July 1, 1951, total $49,100.


SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER PROJECT- EXPENDITURES SINCE MAY 1, 1951
Mr. Diefenbaker:: What has been the expenditure, month by month, since the 1st of May, 1951, and to date on the South Saskatchewan river power and irrigation project?


Mr. McCubbin:: April to June, $66,692.77; July, 42,356.79; August, 65,288.91; September, 66,470.81.


WHEAT SHIPPED THROUGH CHURCHILL
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What was the total amount of wheat shipped through Churchill in 1951?
2.	How many bushels of wheat are in storage at Churchill at the present time?
3.	How many bushels of wheat are in storage as of this date in the local elevators on the prairies, and of this amount how much is of wheat harvested during the present season?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	7,278,443-50 bushels.
[Mr. Balcom.l
2.	As at October 15, 1951, in store, 1,380,392 bushels; en route, 575,001 bushels; total, 1,955,393.
3.	As at October 15, 1951: 1950-51 crop account, 20-4 million bushels; 1951-52 crop account, 65-1 million bushels; total, 85-5 million bushels.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	Are there any employees in the Department of National Defence who are not British subjects?
2.	If so (a) what are their names; (b) respective positions; (c) nature of their work; (d) salary of each; (e) place of origin; (f) by whom and on what date was each recommended?


Mr. Blanchette:: As the hon. member now has the answer to this question, which was tabled on October 17, 1951, sessional paper 78-A, may I suggest that it be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


FERRY SERVICE, PORT AUX BASQUES-NORTH SYDNEY
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: What progress has been made in connection with the construction of the ferry steamer between Port aux Basques and North Sydney?


Mr. Chevrier:: Because this vessel is of an unusual type, requiring the incorporation of various special features, it has been necessary to devote a great deal of time and effort to the preparation of the design plans and specifications. For this reason the plans and specifications have not yet been completed, but considerable progress has been made.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT-CONVICTIONS JANUARY-SEPTEMBER, 1951
Mr. Calherwood:: 1.	How many convictions have been made under the Combines Investigation Act in the nine months ending September 30, 1951?
2.	What is the total of fines collected under this act, during the above period?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	The trial of six bakeries in the Supreme Court of Alberta under section 498(d) of the Criminal Code for conspiracy to unduly prevent or lessen competition had concluded prior to September 30, 1951. The accused were convicted and fined a total of $30,000, together with the whole of the costs or expenses incurred in or about their prosecution and conviction. This judgment was delivered October 2, 1951.
The trial of five match companies in the Quebec Court of King's Bench for an offence against the Combines Investigation Act had

also concluded prior to September 30, 1951 but judgment was reserved until October 29, 1951.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


PERMITS TO PRIVATE FIRMS FOR IMPORT AND EXPORT
Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Were any permits issued to private firms in Canada for the importation of butter in 1951 to date?
2.	If so, to whom were they issued?
3.	On what dates were these permits issued?
4.	How many pounds of butter did each permit cover?
5.	Were any permits granted to date in 1951 for the export of butter?
6.	If so. to whom were they granted?
7.	On what dates were the permits issued?
8.	How many pounds of butter did each permit cover?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The information contained in an application for export or import permit is confidential. As this information has a trade value to competitors, it is not in the public interest to make known the names of the individuals. Permits were issued to four firms which we will designate as A, B, C and D.
3 and 4.
Number of	Date of	
Permits	Issuance	Quantity
	1951	lbs.
A. 3	August 14 ....	56,000
	August 14 ....	56,000
	August 14 ....	56,000
B. 3	August 17 		1,120,000
	August 14 		896,000
	August 14 ....	22,400
C. 2	August 17 		1,120,000
	August 14 ....	22,400
D. 2	August 21 ....	22,400
	August 17 ....	1,120,000
5. Yes.		
6. See answer 7 and 8.	to No. 2.	
Number of	Date of	
Permits	Issuance	Quantity
	1951	lbs.
A. 2	April 9		4,000
	May 23 		1,000
B. 1	January 19 ...	5,000C. 3	January 25 ...	96August 31 ....	1,650September 11 .	60D. 1	July 27 	40E. 1	April 25	28,000
Questions
Number of	Date of
Permits	Issuance	Quantity
1951	lbs.
F.	1	August 23 ....	56,000G.	4	February 5 ...	800March 6	
1,500June 6	
2,320August 23 ....	500H.	9	February 20 ..	720February 23 ..	1,620March 8	
3,500April 11	
1,680June 12	
600July 13	
1,650July 19	
500August 31 ....	250October 5 ....	1,900I.	2	February 19 . .	6,000July 9	
6,000J.	22	January 19 ...	1,740January 23 ...	2,880February 12 ..	3,600February 19 ..	4,020April 6	
1,800April 6	
720April 17	
540April 20	
1,500May 21	
1,500May 21	
1,020May 15	
1,020July 5	
840July 5	
1,380July 9	
480February 23 ..	1,500July 26	
4,500August 1	
2,040August 9	
2,520August 14	....	1,800September	24	.	1,200September	20	.	1,500September	24	.	2,460K.	1	June 25	
20,000L.	1	August 8	
56,000M.	1	August 22	... .	750N.	1	September	25 .	500O.	1	April 9	
56,000P.	6	February 23 ..	1,056
March 12.. 1,344
April 20	 2,592
May 2	 4,800
May 28	 2,300
January 18	...	3,500Q.	2	August 2	_____ 5,400September	25 .	5,400R.	3	April 6.... 2,000
May 31.... 1,000
August 14	....	1,000

Questions
Number of	Date of	
Permits	Issuance	Quantity
	1951	lbs.
12	January 19 ..	50,000
	January 22 ...	1,250
	January 22 ...	500
	January 22 ...	500
	February 28 ..	2,000
	April 26 		50,000
	May 14 		5,000
	June 16 		75,000
	July 9 		5,000
	August 13 		6,500
	September 25 .	5,000
	October 3 		50,000
7	January 10 ..	4,000
	March 6 		1,710
	April 20 		2,850
	July 9 		4,000
	September 18 .	4,000
	September 28 .	1,500
	September 25 .	4,200
ORDERS IN	COUNCIL-INQUIRY	AS TO


WITHHOLDING FROM PUBLICATION
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What is the number of order in council passed on July 4, 1951, under the Emergency Powers Act, which was exempted from publication as noted in the summary of orders in council tabled by the Prime Minister on October 9, 1951?
2.	How many orders, ministerial, administrative or otherwise, have been made under the provisions of the order in council referred to in question 1?
3.	Are these orders exempted from publication? If so, by what authority?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Perhaps I might be allowed to answer this question orally. The number of the order in council in question is P.C. 3486. The authority for exempting regulations, and that comprises orders, is subsection 2 of section 9 of the Regulations Act, chapter 50 of the statutes of 1950. The hon. member will remember that when the emergency powers legislation was under discussion on March 1 I referred to the possibility of the international situation being such that it might make it unavoidable to take action in the interests of security which should not be published or divulged. In referring to the provisions of the Regulations Act I explained how the government intended to deal with such situations. I would refer the hon. member to the report of that explanation which is to be found on pages 806 and 807 of Hansard of March 1, 1951. This is the sort of order that I had in mind in that discussion. I remember that I said that if any hon. member felt that he should have some further information about that type of order I would be glad if he would speak to me privately. I felt sure that if it appeared to him that it should be withheld
fMr. Mcllraith.]
for security reasons we would not hear any more about it. I shall be glad if the hon. member will mention this to me and I hope he will take this as being sufficient answer at this time.


CROWN PROPERTIES
Mr. Murphy:: 1.	What municipalities, which have within their boundaries crown companies or government-owned properties, were paid grants in lieu of taxes for the year 1950?
2.	What was the amount paid to each municipality, specifying the amount paid for each property in such municipality?
3.	What was the cost to the government of each government-owned property or crown company?
4.	If a municipal assessment was made, what was such assessment in each case?
5.	If 1951 payments have been agreed upon, what are the particulars in each case?


Mr. Sinclair:: Part of this question, cannot be answered from our existing records while other parts would involve a large amount of office research to provide answers. I have discussed the matter with the hon. member and he has agreed to drop this question and place another question on the order paper which will give him the information he wishes.


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.


GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ORGANIZATION IN CAPE
Mr. Gillis:: 1.	Has the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys a geological survey organization in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, when did they begin the survey?
3.	What areas are they covering?
4.	Will the survey cover the areas under lease by the Dominion Coal Company?
5.	Will the survey cover the Inverness area?
6.	What progress has been made, if any, in the Cape Breton area toward finding new seams of coal or other minerals?
7.	What progress has been made in the Inverness area toward finding new seams of coal or other minerals?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Yes. A staff is assigned to Sydney in cooperation with the Department of Mines and Research Foundation of Nova Scotia to carry on research in coal petrology.
2.	1948.
3.	Sydney coalfield principally, but minor investigations in coalfields of Inverness county.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6 and 7. This investigation has been directed towards structural features and microscopic study of known coals with a view towards their correlation and development.

Questions
Progress to date indicates that investigation should be of considerable value to the coal mining industry of Nova Scotia, although much detailed work remains to be done before its full practical value can be determined.


HOMER, ONT., DOCK BUILDINGS
Mr. Charlton:: 1.	Have the government dock buildings at Homer, county of Lincoln, been leased or otherwise disposed of?
2.	If so, in whose favour was the lease or other disposition made, when was it made, and upon what terms?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	A lease is being prepared.
2.	In favour of Richard M. Robertson (Robertson Cartage and Storage), effective
August 23, 1951, for a term of 5 years cancellable by either party upon 6 months' notice, at a rental of $2,400 per annum, payable semi-annually. The company has been granted permission to occupy the building at its own risk, pending completion and issuance of the lease.


STEEL IMPORTS FROM COUNTRIES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES, JANUARY, 1950-OCTOBER, 1951
Mr. Boisvert:: What quantities of steel were imported from January, 1950, to October, 1951, from (a) Great Britain; (b) other countries, except United States?


Mr. Mcllraith:: (a) and (b).
January	
February	
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August	
January-August September ....
October	
November .... December	
Imports of Steel into Canada
From United Kingdom	
1950	1951
	(tons of
4,952	17,982
4,461	14,442
4,729	16,383
10,805	24,837
22,150	28,515
26,129	28,613
18,747	27,585
16,254	24,216
108,227	182,573
20,001 35,061 37,332 22,624	
From Other	Countries,
Except United States	
1950	1951
pounds)	
199	5,949
3,648	6,606
1,325	13,880
5,870	27.449
4,565	37,231
4,061	40,533
12,832	44,661
7,427	27,518
39,927 15,730 27,638 25,225	203,827
7,693	
2,000
Total for year
223,245
116,213


INCREASE IN PRICE-MAINTAINED AND NON-PRICE-MAINTAINED ARTICLES
Mr. Murray (Oxford):: 1.	Has an analysis been made within the past ten years as between the percentage increase of price maintained articles and articles that were not price maintained?
2.	If so, what has been (a) the percentage increase of price maintained articles; (b) the percentage increase of articles that were not price maintained?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
It is assumed that the question refers to the relative changes in the retail prices of price-maintained and non-price-maintained articles of the same kind or class, as articles of different classes or kinds would not be affected
by the same factors of cost or market conditions. Studies of price changes which were undertaken were for the purpose of securing information with respect to the price behaviour of a variety of individual articles and do not distinguish between price-maintained and non-price-maintained articles of the same class.


ARMAMENT EQUIPMENT ON F-86E SABRE AIRCRAFT
Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Is the F-86E Sabre aircraft used by the Royal Canadian Air Force, 410 squadron, being equipped with 50-calibre armament?
2.	If so, is this a change in armament policy, and for what reason?


Mr. Blancheile:: 1.	Yes.
2.	This is not a change in armament policy.

Questions


BREAD-QUESTION AS TO REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING BROWN LOAF
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government received any representations, since January 1, 1950, asking that regulations be made to ensure the purchasers of brown bread that they are buying whole wheat rather than white bread dyed brown?
2.	If so, from whom have such representations been received?
3.	What progress is being made in the consideration of such representations,?


Mr. McCusker:: 1. No.
2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.
The department is proceeding as rapidly as possible with consultations with the baking and milling industries and others concerned
with a view to a revision of our flour and bread standards and labelling requirements.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Nowlan:: What is the hourly and/or, where applicable, the monthly wage scale paid by the Department of National Defence at its various establishments in the province of Nova Scotia, to civilian employees of the following classifications:	(a) carpenter; (b)
charwoman; (c) chauffeur and motor truck driver; (d) crane operator; (e) electrician; (f) labourer; (g) motor mechanic; (h) painter and glazier; (i) painter, spray; (j) plumber and steamfitter; (k) tailor; (1) tailoress; (m) tractor operator, large; (n) tractor operator, small; (o) trades helper?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: Wage rates authorized for employment at service establishments in the province of Nova Scotia as of October 19, 1951
Halifax-
H.M.C.' Dartmouth
Aldershot Cornwallis Debert Greenwood Dockyard (outside
Halifax dockyard) Sydney
(a)	Carpenter 	
$	.85	$ .85	$ .95	$ .85	$1.32	$1.33	$1.40(b)	Charwoman ..	.50	....	.65	.65	(c)	Chauffeur and motor truck driver 	133.00	.96	.96	1.04(d)	Crane operator	monthly 1.25	
1	02-1.32	1.45	1.25(e)	Electrician ...	.85	.90	.90	.90	1.32	1.43	1.27i(f)	Labourer 	.60	.65	.70	.60	.97	.91	.99<g)	Motor mechanic	.80	....	1.27	1.00	1.10(h)	Painter and glazier 	.75	.85	.75	.75	1.32	1.17	1.20(i)	Painter, spray.	.80	.90	.85	1.27	<j>	Plumber and steamfitter ..	.85	.95	.95	.90	1.32	1.40	1.50(k)	Tailor 	.70	....	.94	....	(1)	Tailoress (seamstress) .	.55	.83	....(m)	Tractor operator (large) 	1.00	.80	1.20	<n)	Tractor operator (small) 	.85	.80	.70	1.07	1.00	(0)	Trades helper .	.70	.97-1.07	.96	1.04
(Rates per hour except where otherwise indicated)
Note.-Hourly rate employees of the Department of National Defence are paid at the rates prevailing for similar occupational classes of work in the locality as determined and recommended to this department by the Department of Labour and approved by the treasury board.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


TOBACCO


Mr. Coyle:: 1.	What was the total amount paid in taxes on tobacco in each month of the year 1951?
2.	Of these amounts, how much was paid on (a) flue-cured tobaccos; (b) other kinds?
3.	During each of these months, what amount of tobacco was exported?
4.	To what countries was it exported, and what amount to each?
5.	What was the value of the exports to each country?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT PURCHASES

Mr. Cardiff:: 1.	How many bags of Canadian cement did the government buy during the first six months of 1951?
2.	What was the price paid per bag?



NOVA SCOTIA


Mr. Nowlan:: 1.	In the province of Nova Scotia, what departments of the government of Canada employ the corps of commissionaires?
2.	In what places in the said province is the corps so employed, and what are the rates of pay prevailing in each of such places?



TELEVISION


Mr. Brown (Essex Wesi):: 1.	How many television-radio receiving sets are there in use in each federal constituency in Canada?
2.	How many television-radio transmitting stations are there in Canada, and where are they situated?
3.	Are there any television-radio transmitting stations in course of construction in Canada? If so, where?
4.	Is there a fee for the operation of a television-radio receiving set? If so, what is the amount of same?
5.	How much has been collected in 1950, and to date in 1931, from licence fees for operation of television-radio receiving sets in each federal constituency?



DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-CHIEFS OF BRANCHES

['1. What quantity of newsprint has been exported from Canada to Europe in each calendar month since January 1, 1950?\nOrders for Returns\n2.\tWhat quantity of newsprint has been exported from Canada to the United States in each calendar month since January 1, 1950?\n3.\tIs the amount being shipped to Europe to be increased?\n4.\tIf so, will this increase come out of the amount being shipped to the United States, or out of the Canadian domestic quota?']
Mr. Lesage:: Return tabled.



Mr. Knowles:: 1. What quantity of newsprint has been exported from Canada to Europe in each calendar month since January 1, 1950?
Orders for Returns
2.	What quantity of newsprint has been exported from Canada to the United States in each calendar month since January 1, 1950?
3.	Is the amount being shipped to Europe to be increased?
4.	If so, will this increase come out of the amount being shipped to the United States, or out of the Canadian domestic quota?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of the application form issued to those wishing to apply for the universal pension to be paid under the Old Age Security Act, 1951, and also a copy of each form or sheet of instructions sent out to applicants for this pension who have difficulty in proving their age.



OLD AGE SECURITY


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I ask leave at this stage, seconded by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the state of uncertainty, confusion and distress among many of our elder citizens because of the refusal of federal authorities to accept reasonable evidence of age in establishing eligibility for pension under the proposed old age pension legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) has moved, seconded by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance. The hon. member has made his motion at the proper time and has handed a written statement of his motion to me in accordance with this standing order. Standing order 31, subsection 3, reads:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out-
I must decide whether or not the motion is in order and is of urgent public importance. Under our rules urgency means whether or not the house will be given an opportunity to debate the matter at an early date. Paragraph 174 of Beauchesne's third edition reads: "Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate," when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
Paragraph 176 reads:
The "definite matter of urgent public importance," . . . must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.
346	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
Paragraph 176 goes on to state that the matter must be so urgent that the proceedings of the house should be halted so that it may be discussed. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) was asked a question yesterday about this matter and he replied that it would be discussed when the bill which he proposes to introduce is before the house for consideration. I have the order paper before me, item No. 7 of which reads:
In committee of the whole-the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment of pensions, without a means test, of forty dollars a month to persons who have attained the age of seventy years and have appropriate residence qualifications, and to establish a fund made up of special contributions levied for that purpose.
Yesterday the minister stated that this resolution would be considered at an early date. Therefore there will be an early opportunity, without interfering with the regular rules of the house, to discuss the subject matter of the motion which has been moved by the member for Peel (Mr. Gray-don). For that reason I shall have to rule that the matter cannot be considered now, in accordance with standing order No. 31.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Will the Prime Minister state whether the report of the royal commission inquiring into the South Saskatchewan river project will be available this session, so that, if it is favourable, contracts can be let for an early start in the spring?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: On receiving notice of the hon. member's question I communicated with the secretary of the commission. I was informed that it would not be possible for them to have their report available before the end of this session, if the session were completed before the end of the year. I believe it will probably be available for the regular session in 1952.
I can give the hon. member the assurance that I do not think there is anything being lost by the time they are taking to consider the economic problems involved, because as would appear from the answer to question No. 14 on today's order paper, given this afternoon, there is substantial expenditure being made out of moneys already appropriated by parliament, under the prairie farm rehabilitation organization, for engineering which has to do with that project.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare state whether there is any administrative objection to accepting prima facie proof of age under the universal old age pension legislation, and then referring that to the census records to have the matter checked? Then there would not be the confusion which I have tried to indicate there is.


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: If my hon. friend's question serves no other purpose, it serves at least to give me an opportunity to say to him ait once that there is no confusion whatever. It affords me an opportunity also of saying that great progress has been made in the number of applications that have been put in, and in the number that have been processed. He will be quite surprised when the figures are given tomorrow to see how few applications remain to be put in out of the potential 700,000 applicants. This will indicate that there is no confusion. Because I know he is so interested, I believe the hon. member would be the first to recognize the importance of not leaving the impression that there is the kind of confusion which, in his earlier remarks, he suggested there was. I assure him there is no confusion. I know that if I have not succeeded in assuring him now, I shall succeed in convincing him tomorrow.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has consideration been given at this time to increasing the salaries of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Since the hon. member did not give me notice of his question, I shall take his question as notice and bring down an answer.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare consider setting up at this session the committee on health insurance

which has been promised for the next session, so that the committee could at least get started with its work on this important question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe the hon. member asked me that question some months ago. The reply I made on that occasion would serve as well on this occasion.



POULTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: May I ask
the Minister of Agriculture if there have been any changes in government policy on the slaughtering and paying of compensation for flocks infected with Newcastle disease?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The hon. member was kind enough to send me a copy of his question. In reply I may say there has been no change in policy on slaughter and compensation for poultry flocks which have become infected with Newcastle disease. Modifications of the policy have been discussed with provincial departments of agriculture with the hope that it might be possible to avoid the most destructive aspect of the present policy; namely, the slaughter of mature laying flocks.
More than 900 flocks in British Columbia have been vaccinated by veterinary officers of the Department of Agriculture. Vaccine is being provided to provincial authorities for immunization of flocks supplying eggs to approved hatcheries. Progress in this field to date has been most encouraging, and there is every reason to hope that vaccination will replace slaughter of mature flocks as a means of preventing the spread of the disease. Present indications are that it may be necessary to continue for a longer period slaughter of chicks in infected hatcheries and young stock on other infected premises. Compensation, of course, will continue to be paid whenever birds are slaughtered to prevent the spread of the disease.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a supplementary question in connection with Newcastle disease. Will the government pursue the investigation of new methods for controlling this disease?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are continuing the
investigation of new methods and other possibilities. This is an indication of what we are doing at the moment.
Inquiries of the Ministry UNITED NATIONS



POSSIBILITY OF DISTRIBUTING REPORTS OF SPEECHES MADE AT PARIS MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I understand
that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will leave this week for the meeting of the United Nations at Paris. Will he consider having the verbatim reports of speeches made at the plenary session of the United Nations made available and distributed to members of this House of Commons? I suggest that, because it affords members an opportunity of understanding world problems. I imagine that such a distribution is not normally made, and a good many members would like to know what was discussed at this plenary session.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: I shall look into that
matter, but I would point out that it is a large undertaking because many speeches are made in the plenary session of the United Nations.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether the government has any intention of appointing a representative to the Vatican?


Lester Bowles Pearson: From time to time the
government gives consideration to the establishment of direct diplomatic relations with sovereign slates in which Canada has at the present time no diplomatic missions. This, of course, includes the Vatican.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, October 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Cauchon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springfield):: On September 14 of this year, Mr. Speaker, it was about six years since I first had the opportunity of seeing this green chamber. In the intervening time I have been able to hear and take part in many of the debates in this house. Many of the things which were discussed during that time are now on the statute books of Canada.

The Address-Mr. Sinnott
Before touching on my main theme I wish to make one remark. Up until now, I have been known as "two-job John". Possibly later on I may be known as three-job John.


Gordon Graydon: No-limit John.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: However, as a result of the
two sessions a year, I found it impossible to continue the leadership of the municipality which I have had the honour to represent for the last ten years; but I want to tell the house that I have left the municipality which I have represented for the last ten years in better financial position that it has ever been before since it was a municipality. I have the greatest of confidence in the people who used their good judgment in sending me down here, as a result of a misfortune of my late predecessor, Mr. John Turner, who, unfortunately, succumbed to a heart ailment and passed on to the next world. Through the good judgment of the people of my constituency, I was able to assume the position held by the late Mr. Turner, with a majority of 579. I thought I did fairly well. But after four years, in the 1949 election the electors of the good constituency of Springfield saw fit to give me a majority of over 3,000.
In the constituency of Springfield we have the most ardent of workers. The people are hard workers. They have the distinction of producing more in the crop district which I represent than is produced in any other crop district in the whole of Manitoba. This is an achievement of hard workers; but most important of all is the fact that the large majority of them are good Liberals.
I wish to join with those who have complimented the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As I am in the difficult spot of being about the forty-fifth member to take part in this debate, I will try to confine my remarks to matters other than those which have been dealt with up to the present time. The speech delivered by the mover of the address in reply was certainly of the finest calibre. Then when we heard from the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons), who extolled the vast resources of the north, we could see the possibility for a population of four million or five million in that part of the country. Many of the people in the world who are today starving will find an opportunity in that vast north country. As a passing remark, possibly I should also draw to the attention of the house the fine speech we heard from the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair). Since I have come here this young gentleman has gone a long way. Each speech he makes is better than the one before. I must say to the people
(Mr. Sinnott.]

back in Coast-Capilano that they did credit to themselves by electing such a member to this House of Commons.
Mention has already been made of the proposed increase in the veterans pensions. I was glad to hear the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) rise in his place a few days ago and say that legislation would be brought down at this session for the purpose of relieving those people who have been suffering a great deal because of the rising cost of living. There is nothing that we in this house could do which would be more humane to those people who have given their lives, and many others their limbs, having suffered overseas for the protection of those who are living here in luxury today. The least we can do is to increase their pensions considerably so that they can live in comfort for the rest of their days.
I also wish to say that the government has taken a step in the right direction in its announcement that measures will be brought down this year to make available pensions at age 70 without a means test, and for those between the ages of 65 and 70. The municipalities have had a difficult time in looking after many of these aged people from 65 to 70. I am sure that the legislation which will be introduced before long will relieve the municipalities throughout the Dominion of Canada of a load which they have been carrying.
At this time I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) the fact that last year he promised some relief for the crippled. There are many people in this country who are in a crippled condition and who are deserving of a pension. It was only at our last council meeting that we had brought into our presence a boy in a wheel chair. He has been suffering from infantile paralysis since he was three years old and is not able to make a dollar for himself. Through the good graces of the council, we were only able to offer him $10 a month. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare will make provision for a pension something like that which will be provided for those over 70 years of age, I am sure that it will be welcomed throughout the length and breadth of Canada.
I should also like to say how pleased I am that at last Canada has taken it UDon herself to say that if the United States will not share in the construction of the deep seaway in the St. Lawrence, she will undertake the project herself. To western Canada this will mean a great deal. It will mean something that we have been awaiting a long time. The congestion of freight boats in the great lakes will be relieved to a great extent when

these ocean-going vessels will be able to go up to the port of Fort William and load their grain instead of its being necessary to transfer it from one vessel to another.
In this house a great deal has been said about inflation. It may be true that there is inflation, but I want to refer to an address delivered to the National Council of Women by J. R. Petrie, the director of research of the Canadian Tax Foundation. This is what he had to say:
What I shall say to you this morning represents an honest attempt to face facts and to reach conclusions which have some foundation in logic. I propose first to examine the causes of inflation, and then to appraise the remedies that have been advanced to cure it.
It is perfectly obvious that inflated living costs have caused many people to suffer reduced living standards. In the calendar year 1950 the cost of living indexes rose by 10-1 points. In the first eight months of this year it has risen by another 17-8 points, bringing the cost of living to a point nearly 90 per cent higher than the average during the period 1935-1939. This is another way of saying that our dollar will buy only about half as much as it did before the war.
But that is only part of the story. While dollars are much less valuable than they used to be, we have far more of them. Per capita net personal incomes, after direct personal taxes, amounted to $305 in 1939. In 1950 it was $898. Thus, while the cost of living has increased by 90 per cent, net personal income has increased by more than 190 per cent. And despite high taxes and high prices, personal saving was 147 per cent greater in 1950 than in 1939.
These figures indicate that in general terms the problem of inflation is not as serious from an economic viewpoint as many people would have us believe. Many, perhaps most, Canadians are in fact better off materially than ever before.
Then on page 5 he has this to say:
One thing should be clearly understood about monetary and fiscal policy. It can be made to put an abrupt stop to price increases if applied ruthlessly. But the price to be paid is unemployment. You can take your choice of low employment and low prices (we had that situation in the thirties) or full employment and high prices. Nobody has ever devised a way in a free society whereby the brave new world of perfect equilibrium between demand and supply can be maintained, and I suggest that nobody ever will. Remember, I used the words "in a free society." Anything can happen in a slave state, where the principles of economics become as meaningless as the principles of liberty, justice and the dignity of man. I cannot believe that the Canadian people are really prepared to accept complete regimentation in return for the possible reward of price stability. And probably the reward would turn out to be just as illusory as it has been in Britain.
So much for the government's policy of attacking two pressure points on the price level-consumer spending and capital expansion. I mentioned a third pressure point earlier-that is, government spending, which is just as inflationary as private spending. It is just as important to curb government spending as it is to curb private spending.
In 1939 all governments in Canada, federal, provincial and municipal, spent $1,181 million on current account. In 1948 they spent $2,917 million. Last year the figure reached $3,826 million, more than three times the figure for 1939. Now, in the current fiscal year, it looks as though the total of
The Address-Mr. Sinnott
all government expenditures would be over $5,000 million. And there is no end in sight. When the bill for old age pensions comes in next year, the federal budget alone is likely to approximate $4,000 million, and if provincial and municipal governments continue to increase their spending, the total would be about $5,500 million. In other words, proposed government spending next year amounts to $393 per head for every man, woman and child in Canada, compared with $102 in 1939.
On October 15, at page 45 of Hansard, the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) had this to say:
In a recent broadcast, which I subsequently criticized, the Prime Minister contended that if prices were controlled there might not be a fair distribution of some scarce commodities without rationing. Let me say once again that the Canadian people are rationed now, not by tickets but by a much more cruel, harsh and unjust system of rationing, rationing by the purse.


Mr. Gibson:: Has that not always been true of
every nation at all times?
You know, Mr. Speaker, I do not always come to the defence of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson), but at this time I do. If the leader of the C.C.F. party thinks that he is going to distribute the wealth equally to every man, woman and child in Canada, then I wonder how he is to equalize the amount of work performed by each man, woman and child. There are men in this country who through their own ability cannot earn enough to make their own living. Is the man who has the ability to go out and work and earn a substantial living for himself, through his own initiative, expected to work and earn enough for the fellow who does not want to earn a living for himself?
I continue with the quotation:


Major James William Coldwell: That is an old Tory talking. That has always been done and therefore it always has to be done. I intend no reflection on the Progressive Conservative party; I said "Tory." May I say that we were treated this afternoon to a great deal of information regarding what is happening in other countries.
Who was talking about what is happening in other countries? The C.C.F. party has generally been holding up Britain as an example. Then we were shown the critical condition of Canada. That was illustrated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart). He said that the time is now for over-all control. Over-all control of what? Did he mean wages? He never said a word about wages. And yet I read an article in an Ottawa paper dated October 16 which says that jobs reach peak level in Canada. We were told a few years ago, and have been told the same thing year after year since 1946, that this country would have a vast amount of unemployment. But the article I hold in my hand does not say that. After all the immigration we have had into Canada we find that jobs have reached a peak level in Canada.
350	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Sinnott
I hold in my hand another article dated October 19 which says that labour earned $832 million during July, an all-time high. In this country, in the policies that the government has followed, wages have not been frozen. They have been determined by mutual agreement between employers and the workers of Canada. I am sure that if the wages had been frozen as they were in Britain we would not be finding such headlines in the papers as "Labour earns $832 million during July, an all-time high."
Then we have another member of the C.C.F. party making a request. These little requests that you see in the paper are what I call political dodges. While the hon. member may be sincere in what he says, it does not conform to the policies of the C.C F. party. If that is his own opinion then the place for him to sit should be on this side of the house. I am now referring to the hon. member for Selkirk, and the headline reads: "Bryce urges government to help dairy industry."
He said one of the greatest troubles today is that a cream shipper realizes only about $2.30 per hundred pounds for milk testing 3-5.
He appealed to the government "to give serious consideration to the plight of the dairy farmers so that butter may become more plentiful."


Mr. Bryce:: What is wrong with that?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: There is nothing wrong with that, my dear friend, but your party has been hounding this party for a lower cost of living all the time, and here you are asking for an increase to the farmers.


William Scottie Bryce: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: My time will all be taken up with what I have to say. If I have time when I finish I shall be glad to answer the hon. member.


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: No permission.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Springfield has the floor.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have heard much about inflation from the Tory party and the C.C.F. party, and the terrible wrong it is to have $500 million surplus. They have told us that it has been a terrible wrong, a terrible crime. If it has been a terrible crime, and yet is going to be used to pay off Canada's national debt, and reduce Canada's interest charges over a period of years, then I do not see anything


wrong with it. But if we had on this side of the house a deficit of $500, then you would hear a roar from the other side!


Pierre Gauthier: Strike one!


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I do not pretend to be one who knows it all. I have had to make my way by going the hardest way; I have gone from the bottom to where I am today-thanks to the people with whom I have been associated for a long time.
I say to the minister who is in charge of the income tax branch that the only way we can get lower prices is to give greater incentive to the primary producer. If adequate steps are taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to reduce the income tax of the primary producer he will find that they will produce far more than they are today. I know many people who could raise hogs, but they say, "Why should we raise hogs, if I have to give the profit all back to Mr. Abbott?"


James Sinclair: A good man to give it to.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Well, people who work sixteen hours a day on the farms, feeding hogs, milking cows and doing the many other jobs there are on the farm want to have something more for themselves. They may not see a show once in a month. I urge upon the Minister of Finance that there should be some difference in the tax regulations as applied to primary producers and consumers. In the long run the consumer will get the benefit of the lower prices, if there is greater production in the country.
I have before me several news items, one of which states "Agricultural farm prices show decline", and another which states "McColl-Frontenac six month net up". One of the major oil companies saw fit to construct a large refinery in my constituency at a cost of about $10 million. We are pleased that they did so because it affords one of the main centres of employment in that area. An article appeared in the Free Press just before the plant was built stating that the building of the plant would mean a reduction to the extent of four or five cents a gallon in the price of fuel. Because the refinery was so near, the farmers in that district, it said, would be able to get their petroleum products five cents a gallon cheaper.
The prices of our petroleum products have been reduced very little. In the light of the huge amounts these oil companies have been making I say an investigation should be made

under the Combines Investigation Act to find out why we cannot have our gasoline cheaper. It is 42 cents in Manitoba and 45 cents in Ontario, but in a newspaper I saw the other day I read an item stating that it was selling for as little as 12 cents at some points in the United States. I say therefore that an effort should be made to find out why there is so great a spread.
The point I should like to stress at this time is that there should be an adjustment in wheat prices received by the producers. We are selling to the people of Canada at the same price as we sell through the international wheat agreement. To my mind that principle is wrong. In selling wheat to the rest of Canada at a price much lower than they could have received elsewhere, the farmers of western Canada have suffered a heavy penalty in the last few years.
I do not oppose the procedure of giving a special price to Great Britain because we must look after our surplus. The fact that we can export a large proportion of our surplus to Great Britain, and find a ready market there, is certainly worth some consideration by way of reducing the price of wheat to them. However, the open-market or class II wheat price is so much higher than the international wheat price, I say there should be some adjustment whereby the farmers of western Canada would receive between 12 and 15 cents a bushel more for their wheat.
There are many hon. members who appear to believe that the farmers in western Canada are receiving $2 a bushel for their wheat. That is not so. Let me make it clear here and now to every hon. member that farmers are getting far less than that amount. Wheat board cash prices at Fort William, as of October 18, were as follows: No. 1 Manitoba northern, $1.89; No. 2, $1.87; No. 3, $1.85; No. 4, $1.79; No. 5, $1.66; No. 6, $1.55 and feed wheat at $1.49. If one takes the average of these seven prices he finds a price of somewhere between $1.82 and $1.85.
This is not the price the farmer receives at the elevator; it is the price he receives at Fort William, after paying the freight and handling charges, as well as the carrying charges, which amount to 20 cents a bushel. So the farmer receives actually only $1.65 for the average grade of his wheat.
As a farmer let me state here and now there is nothing grown today which brings a smaller return than does wheat. One can
The Address-Mr. Sinnott grow oats, barley or flax and make more money by doing so. Even rye brings a greater return. In short, one can make more money out of any of these other cereal grains than he can from the production of wheat. So let no member in the house, nor anyone outside the house, say that the farmer is getting $2 a bushel for his wheat when, in fact, $1.65 is tops.
I have another notation to which I intend to refer at some length. The hon. member in question is not in his seat, and in my reply I do not like to be too tough on him; but he did say that the price of beef was too high. I would say to him that the hon. member who until a short time ago represented the constituency of Calgary West said that when beef got to 30 cents a pound it was too high. Todav it is 36 or 37 cents. Does the hon. member mean that he would roll back the price of beef, and thus penalize the farmer for producing a commodity in short supply today? If he means that, then let him say so.
All these crazy statements one hears remind me of a story which, I believe, was told about some members of the C.C.F. party who on one occasion were invited to inspect an asylum. The superintendent of this institution, before the visitors arrived, said to the inmates, "Now, we are having some distinguished visitors visit us tomorrow. I want you to salute them, just as if it was Joe Stalin coming through here." Well, the visiting party toured the wards of the institution- through the kitchen, the dormitories and all the other points of interest. Passing through the hall they noticed a man with a broom. One of the visitors said to another "That fellow didn't salute us." The chap with the broom stopped and said, "Are you referring to me?" They said that they were, and he went on to say, "Well, I am not one of the inmates; I am only the janitor here."
However, I am happy to state that people throughout the length and breadth of the country do not follow the wild statements of our friends to the left. When you see clippings to the effect that labour earned $832 million during July it makes me wonder what kind of government they have had. Did they have a socialist government? No, they did not have a socialist government. Everything that labour has achieved up until now has been through a good Liberal government.
I have a few more remarks to make with respect to farming. The farmers have been the downtrodden people of this country for a long time. I have a table containing certain farms statistics. It might save time if

The Address-Mr. Sinnott I were permitted to put it on Hansard, but it


Some hon. Members:: No. you would like me to read it I will do so. Mr. Sinnott: Then I will read it. It is as Would you like me to table it?	follows:
1941, number of dairy farms 1941, number of farms reporting revenue from sales of dairy products, 1940, by
Number of occupied farms revenue from dairy products 1940, and gross province, Canada.
Province
Canada	
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia 

Gross farm
		Farms	revenue from	
reporting	sales of	GrossNo. of	No. of	revenue from dairy	farmsoccupied dairy	dairy	prod-	revenuesfarms	farms	products	ucts	(1)	(2)	(3)No.	No.	No.	$	?732,832	47,625	431,329	126,094,808	858,147,56512,230	173	7,471	932,730	8,754,29932,977	2,335	18,978	4,125,908	24,820,08831,889	1,254	18,331	3,498,750	24,011,296154,669	15,742	102,386	36,610,180	138.635,395178,204	21,479	121,463	52,068,570	238,450,59858,024	1,451	38,861	7,537,980	72,748,827138,713	822	65,966	6,629,500	169,098,79599,732	987	48,901	7,994,420	148,006,12526,394	3,382	8,972	6,696,770	33,622,142
(Data from tables 30 and 46, volume VIII, 1941 census)
(1)	Holdings of 1 acre or more carrying on agricultural operations.
(2)	Farms reporting 50 per cent or more of their 1940 revenue from sales of dairy products.
(3)	Includes value of products consumed by the farm households.
I am sorry I have had to take up so much time reading these statistics but it was important to get them on Hansard so that people in various parts of Canada will know where most of the farms are and the revenue derived therefrom. I have one more thing to say and then I am through. The reason why I say that the farmers are downtrodden people is that they have always had to sell their produce on the open market. During the last few years the price of wheat was frozen and they had to accept one price for any one year. At one time this fall hogs were $36 a hundred, and a couple of weeks later they had dropped to as low as $29 a hundred, but the consumers of this country never paid one dime less in the stores. Let it not be said that the farmers of Canada are the ones who are getting all the profits from hogs. The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) pointed that out. He followed the hog through from the time it was born until it was in the consumers' hands.
The farmers are suffering because of the huge tariffs in effect today. For example, the tariff on automobiles is 17J per cent, on refrigerators 20 per cent, on vacuum cleaners 20 per cent, on washing machines 22J per cent, on sewing machines 15 per cent, on radios 20 per cent, and on electric stoves and all electric appliances 22J per cent. If the manufacturers of the United States were given an opportunity to sell their products on the local markets of Canada then the farmers of western Canada and Canada as a whole
[Mr. Sinnott.l
would be able to get their agricultural machinery, electric appliances, automobiles, all the things which they need to produce, much cheaper.


Mr. Cardiff:: Whose fault is that?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Since it is a Tory who has asked me I am willing to give him the answer. The tariffs I have referred to apply now. In the days of Arthur Meighen and R. B. Bennett the tariffs which applied ranged from 35 per cent to 37 per cent. The manufacturers of eastern Canada, for example, in Ontario, have had their heyday. I put a question on the order paper on March 16, 1951. I asked how many farm tractors were manufactured in eastern Canada. The answer I received was that the figure was 36,006. The value of those tractors was $65,495,176. All that money came from western Canada for the production of these tractors. I believe that some time ago a committee sat for three years to determine why farm tractors were selling in Canada at a much higher price than in the United States although manufactured by the same company. The committee was never able to determine why the company charged more for the same tractor in Canada than it did in the United States, especially when we realize that wages in the United States are much higher than those in Canada.
Just before I wind up I want to say a word about the cabinet, and I do so with the friendliest of intentions. I do not want what

I say taken as being said in any derogatory way. In looking over the cabinet I find the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is a lawyer. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is a lawyer. The Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) is a lawyer. The Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) is an engineer. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is a lawyer. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is a lawyer. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is a farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) is a lawyer. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) is a professor-engineer. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is a Bachelor of Science. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) is a lawyer. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) is a medical doctor. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is a lawyer. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is a professor of external affairs. The Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) is a lawyer. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) is a builder.
I come now to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I do not believe I can say enough about our Prime Minister. He has been trying to do his best. I do not believe there has been a prime minister since confederation who has done so well for the humble people in this country, the rank and file. He represents the ordinary man and woman and there is no one in Canada who is looked upon with as much esteem.
Counting up the cabinet I find there are twelve or thirteen lawyers. We have a cabinet fairly representative of wholesalers, retailers, the legal profession, the dental profession, manufacturers, importers and exporters, and then we have our own wee Jimmy Gardiner to fight the battle for the farmer. I am reminded of the time when I was going to school. One night after school fourteen or fifteen of the boys piled on one little fellow and they were giving him a real mauling. He was hollering for help. Finally someone came along and helped him. The Minister of Agriculture is not as young as he used to be, but the cabinet is larger than it used to be. His opposition is greater than it has ever been before and I urge the government to provide more farmer representation in the cabinet.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, before I launch into my principal theme today I feel constrained to say a word about some of the evasions of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin)
The Address-Mr. Fleming in connection with questions which were put to him yesterday and today with regard to the registration of applicants for the pension to be payable to persons 70 years of age and over as from January 1 next. The questions put to the minister by members of the official opposition were fair, reasonable and proper, arising as they do out of the current experiences of many thousands of Canadians who find themselves tangled up in the red tape with which the Department of National Health and Welfare is ringing round these applications for pensions for those 70 years of age and over.
I do not think it reflects any credit on the Minister of National Health and1 Welfare that he does not come out and reply in an informative manner to the questions that have been asked. It seems to me that the minister is just playing politics with this question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, he is playing politics. It would be well to emphasize that these pensions for those 70 years and over to be paid as from January 1 next are a federal matter. The provinces have had no part whatever in the framing of the regulations that are being used to tie yards and yards of red tape around these applications. The provinces have had no part whatever in setting the requirements imposed by the Department of National Health and Welfare. The prescribed requirements as to proof of age have been laid down and are administered exclusively and entirely by the federal government.
What is required today is a common-sense approach, not an approach designed to perpetuate a regime of red tape. After all, it is common knowledge that 70 years ago records as to birth were not well kept. The births of many people were not registered by their parents at that time. Surely it is no credit to the common sense of the government or of the parliament of this country that a condition is tolerated in which people are being told that for lack of other proof they will have to lug huge family bibles to the various offices of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Let me give one or two examples of the way this works out. I know of one family in which there are four persons who are eligible by age and on other grounds for the pension. Their births were not registered. They were all born in this country. There is just the one family bible. These four persons are now scattered all the way from eastern Ontario to the prairies. What is to be done about the family bible? One would have thought that the sensible thing to do would be to have photostatic copies made of
354	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fleming the page in the family bible on which the births are recorded. But no, that is not enough to satisfy the requirements of this red tape regime. These people will either have to do without the pension or will have to lug the family bible four times to four different local offices of the Department of National Health and Welfare in different localities all the way from eastern Ontario to the prairies. Does that make sense? Of course it does not. That is the sort of thing the federal government is imposing on people in the matter of proof. It just defies common sense. It is high time the Minister of National Health and Welfare ceased indulging in these evasions and came out to meet this problem fairly and in a reasonable spirit.
I am not one of those who follow the fashion that has become current in certain quarters of disparaging the importance of the debate on the address. If proof of the value of this debate is needed it will be found in whait happened in this house on Friday last. After some six days of debate featured by repeated demands on the part of members ot the opposition for remedial action by the government to raise the basic veterans pensions the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) eventually rose in his place that day and in the face of those demands intimated that legislation not hitherto referred to in any way, shape or form in the throne speech would be introduced at this present session.
It was a welcome attitude the minister adopted on that occasion, although unhappily belated. It is a tribute to what has been accomplished by the opposition speakers in the course of this debate. If nothing else is to be accomplished by this debate, then that alone will have justified the efforts of the opposition members in the present debate.
I regret that the government has chosen to try to break and interrupt this debate by confining it now to two days each week while the house proceeds with other business on the other three days of the week. I think, Mr. Speaker, the purpose is obvious. The way in which speakers in this house have laid stress upon the condition of inflation and high prices in this country, to a government that does not like to hear speeches of that kind, makes it only natural and desirable in the government's view that the debate should be shifted, and that the public's attention should be diverted to some other subjects and away from this matter of overriding importance. This is the principal and most vital of all domestic issues facing the Canadian people today.


We need not spend any time quibbling about the meaning of the word "inflation". The member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) in his very able speech last week sought to draw attention to the fact that high prices are simply a manifestation or expression of a condition of inflation. That may well be. The essence of the matter, however, is that we have inflation; we have high prices. This is no new matter, either. If one goes back to 1948 and the deliberations of the prices committee of that year, one will find a discussion of the same thing, an inflationary condition reflected in rising and high prices, a condition which has been exacerbated many times over by the intolerable rise in price levels since that time. It is our paramount domestic problem, but not the only domestic problem which is facing us today. It is causing downright suffering in hundreds of thousands of Canadian homes all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Apparently that fact has made little, if any, impression upon the government.
In all fairness, we of the official opposition do not say the government is entirely responsible for the condition of high prices and inflation. Nevertheless, we do say with emphasis and conviction that the government holds a major degree of responsibility for the inflation which exists in Canada today. Their responsibility is twofold: first, their policies have, in large measure, created this condition; second, they have failed to take prompt and effectual remedial measures to cope with these conditions.
In the course of this debate the government has provided nothing by way of policy or promise which holds out any hope whatever for arresting these galloping prices. We are told that there is to be some legislation introduced in regard to resale price maintenance. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, while awaiting with interest the text of the legislation, I think that the people of this country will want to see this problem and that proposal in their proper perspective. They will realize by this time that that proposal affects only a tiny segment of the problem. What the government is doing, of course, is trying to inflate what, after all, is a proposal of only very narrow proportions and effect. Yes, the government's contribution to this debate thus far, and to the problem under discussion, has been to draw all the usual smoke screens over the problem.
Then there is the Combines Investigation Act. In his radio speech a week ago last night, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) was at some pains to stress the function of this act as being principally the prevention of combines in restraint of competition rather

than punishment thereof. Whatever the effect of that act may have been at one time when the administration was in other hands, the fact remains that this government has shown, by its own example, that this Combines Investigation Act is not to be depended upon by anyone who is looking for effective enforcement measures to cope with combines or to cope with attempts to raise prices by means of combines. The Minister of Justice is the man who, apparently under the direction of the cabinet, defied the provisions of this act two years ago. He defied them for a period of twelve months. In the face of that record of suppression, in the face of that record of interference, what faith is anyone in this country going to have in the enforcement of this act today? Is this act, under those conditions and in the hands in which the enforcement of the act is placed today, going to have any effect whatever in preventing breaches of it? Is it going to dissuade other people from breaking this act when they see the chief law enforcement officer of the crown himself breaking the act? This record of interference and suppression has reduced the Combines Investigation Act largely to the status of a dead letter in this country.
What else have we received from the government in the course of this debate? I say, nothing-no other proposal that holds out any hope whatever of coping with this dangerous condition of inflation. The sum total of the government's contribution to this debate, instead of giving us a positive program of action, has been a wretched, sorry and puny contribution indeed.
I say to you that the amendment introduced by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), as he has said, does afford an opportunity for all those who wish to see some action to meet this problem to assert their views, and to make them heard in this chamber. It provides ample and complete opportunity for those who wish to express their desire for action by the government. Of course, it did not suit the socialist members of this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, we want action.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The socialist members of this house obviously want regimentation. Their speeches clearly disclose that they want that kind of regimentation which is inherent in the form of socialism they have been preaching in this house, not just now but in times past. It ill behooves the leader of that party to make the kind of statement in which he indulged in his radio address last night. The leader of the opposition in a courageous speech in this house last Friday made it quite clear that he and the members whom he leads
The Address-Mr. Fleming intend to vote against the C.C.F. amendment. The reasons for so doing were made quite clear in his comprehensive and courageous speech. I cannot say as much for the speech made over the radio last night by the leader of the C.C.F. when he said, in the worst example of sheer, hollow demagoguery that has been witnessed for a long time:
I suggest that the powerful influences who finance and support the campaigns of the Progressive Conservative party have repudiated Progressive Conservative support for price controls and subsidies where necessary, and our demand "for an equality of sacrifices at this time."
In reply to that form of empty demagoguery, I want to say that no powerful influences from the outside have dictated any change of policy on the part of the Progressive Conservative party. The statement made by the leader of the opposition in this house last Friday represents the policy of this party. It is a policy that has been arrived at in terms of the needs and aspirations of all the Canadian people, and of the views of those whom he leads in this house today. Let there be no mistake about that.
Here is a further example of this hollow demagoguery in which the member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) indulged last night. He said, of the three or four byelections which the Conservatives have won.
. . . In three of which at least, the high cost of living and inflation had some part in the Progressive Conservative successes.
Of course they did, because we have been the party which has been fighting this inflation and putting forth sensible and concrete measures to meet it, if the government would only follow them. I shall have something to say later this afternoon about some of those measures.
This is the final and climaxing statement by the leader of the C.C.F.:
The only way in which censure or dissatisfaction can be recorded is to vote C.C.F.
Heaven help the Canadian people if that were their only alternative! It is fortunate that they have an attractive alternative in the form of the Progressive Conservative party.
In saying what I have said about the futility of government policies, I repeat that they have had nothing to offer of a constructive nature in the course of this debate. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) both in his radio speech a month ago and in his speech in the house a week ago last Monday still had nothing to offer, and was far from doing himself justice in the way he tried to be on both *ddes of this problem. I will say this for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott): in the radio speech that he made about a fortnight ago, he was at least frank in stating the problem. While he had nothing to offer to the people

The Address-Mr. Fleming of Canada except the application of the screws of government taxing policy, nevertheless he was at least frank in saying so, and I commend his example to other members of the government who apparently have nothing more to offer. And so we see this cost of living grinding on the people of Canada today.
I wish to offer what we of the Progressive Conservative party say are concrete proposals for meeting this gravest of all Canadian domestic problems. The first and foremost need of the situation is a reduction in taxes. We look back to those increases in the sales tax and in the excise tax. We also go back to the increases in the direct taxes last spring. We recall that in the face of pleas and warnings from this part of the house the Minister of Finance, with the acquiescence of, I think, all but one of the Liberal members in this house, insisted upon applying to the hard-pressed Canadian taxpayer the screws of his financial policy, with respect to the necessities of life-not on luxuries, but on the necessities of life.
In his able speech of last week the hon. member for Coast-Capilano sought to make a virtue of increasing the consumption taxes, increasing the taxes on those things that people want to buy. Why do they want to buy those things on which the sales tax was increased and on which the excise tax was increased or newly applied? It is because they are necessities and the people require them. But, Mr. Speaker, the increases in the taxes had the inevitable effect of raising prices. They could not do otherwise. What is the remedy? Well, if one follows the reasoning of the government, apparently the way to beat the problem of inflation is to take taxing measures, to apply tax increases which themselves will inevitably have the effect of raising the price level. That is the government's solution for this problem of high prices: Tax so that the prices will be further increased! What a solution for the problem!
Mr. Speaker, what do you suppose the man from Mars would say if he landed in Canada about now and was told by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano that we have the problem of high prices? The hon. member would say: This is a manifestation of inflation. Our man from Mars would naturally ask: What are you doing about it? What is your government doing about it? The answer, of course, would come back: Well, we are applying taxation policies that have the effect of increasing prices. The man from Mars would say: Let me get this straight. You are complaining about high prices, and yet what your government is doing is to increase prices? The hon. member would say:

Yes; and that is the policy that the government declare and they say it is good for us. Mr. Speaker, I think our man from Mars would then plead to be taken back to Mars at once. He would say: This is no place for me. This is apparently a government whose policies are dictated by lunacy. If he was acquainted with legal procedure, I am sure he would run to the nearest superior court and immediately apply for a commission de lunatico inquirendo with regard to the whole government.
I was reminded of a cartoon that I saw not long ago which was intended to illustrate a group of public officials-in this case I think it would admirably suit the federal cabinet-at a meeting in which they are discussing current problems; and one man-one can well imagine this is the Minister of Finance driving home his fiscal policies in the cabinet-stands up and says: "Naturally I would not rule out common sense as the answer to our problems, but first we must exhaust every other possibility."
That was not all. They went ahead and applied increases in the corporation tax, and they applied them to public utilities, with the inevitable result that the public utilities are going to the public bodies that regulate their rates and are asking for increases in rates. That was inevitable. We told the Minister of Finance that, but he would not listen. Then of course we have the increases in the direct taxes on individuals, with increases up to 70 per cent in the deductions from the take-home pay; and the take-home pay is the thing that the wage earner and the salary earner of this country look at. It was inevitable that demands should follow for increases in wages and salaries. Those demands have come, and those demands are being given effect to. The result inevitably has been an increase in price levels. Again, we told the Minister of Finance that last spring. We said that would be the inevitable effect of these increases, but again he would not listen.
Mr. Speaker, we of the official opposition have a relatively simple and understandable philosophy with regard to budgets. We believe that taxation should be designed to meet proper government expenditure, and that budgets should be honestly and accurately computed and approved after careful deliberation by the house. The Minister of Finance last year intimated that he was running close to the wind. While he was demanding an increase in taxation that would yield another $405 million in the remainder of this fiscal year, and a total of $578 million in a full twelve months' period, he said:	This is going to yield us a surplus of only $30 million. That was according to his alleged extremely

careful budgeting. And oh, how he wrung our hearts by telling us how careful he had been in budgeting. He and his officials had been sitting up nights. Hon. members will recall how he turned around and thanked his colleagues in the cabinet for the way they had co-operated with him in paring down their estimates, and he indicated that it was a superhuman task that had been achieved. He pointed out that this was going to put the receipts and expenditures in this country in close balance. There was just a margin of $30 million. Of course that was a narrow margin that might easily be disturbed, he said, and therefore he could not consider taking one cent off these proposed increases in taxation. What has been the result? The result has been what we told him it would be. Instead of a surplus of $30 million he has accumulated in just five months of the fiscal year a surplus of $502 million. That is just seventeen times the surplus that he estimated for the full twelve months' period.
Mr. Speaker, did any official opposition in the house ever have more complete vindication than we now have for what we told this minister last spring when we said that his increases in taxation were unnecessary? Now he is trying to make a virtue of debt reduction and a virtue of surpluses. If there was virtue in a surplus and in debt reduction last spring, why did the Minister of Finance not budget for such? But he did not do so. He was then no apostle of the virtues of debt reduction or the virtues of a budgetary surplus. Not at all. He was then the minister who believed in drawing a fine and nice balance between income and expenditure with a margin of a mere $30 million. Why, it was only a nominal surplus!
Nobody in this house is going to be beguiled or misled, I am sure, by this talk today from the government benches about the virtues of debt reduction. We in the official opposition believe in debt reduction, but we believe in it according to proper estimating and proper budgeting. We believe in it as a fixed policy, not on a hit-and-miss basis to be covered up by gross increases in taxation that have been shown to be quite unnecessary. I tell you. Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance apparently did not believe in debt reduction last spring. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano, his able parliamentary assistant, apparently did not believe in it then, but he claims to now.
The debonair Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is not, he tells us, the least bit worried about this huge surplus he is piling up. I would like to tell him that the Canadian people, who are being soaked today by this tax-gathering government to amass this large and mostly unnecessary surplus, are
The Address-Mr. Fleming tired of his policies. They are concerned about this huge surplus. They are tired of the colossal and costly blunders of the Minister of Finance and his budgets, and they are tired of the nonchalance and callousness with which he now regards his gross and unforgivable errors in budgeting. It is another reflection of the attitude so blithely demonstrated in this house last session by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and Defence Production (Mr. Howe) when he said: "If we want to get away with it who is going to stop us?" And that, sir, is the arrogant behaviour reflected by this government in its attitude towards those problems day in and day out. They say in effect, we do not care what the people say; we have a big and submissive majority so that we can push things through the house. If we want to get away with this, if we want to get away with this shocking increase in taxation, then who is going to stop us? Well, I tell them that if they will give the people of this country an opportunity they will stop them.
The Minister of Finance was not satisfied with having built up the biggest record of budget errors in all history, errors aggregating in the period of five years during which he has been holding his present portfolio $1,400 million, an average of $280 million a year. That is just the margin of error in the minister's figures in the five previous budgets. And that of course works out at nearly a million dollars of error a day. That is the extent to which he overtaxed the Canadian people for five years. But he was not satisfied with that record. He was out this year to build up bigger and better records, and so in the period of five months he has built up this colossal surplus of $502 million, a surplus of over $100 million a month, or $3,333,000 a day; or if you want to go further, it is $140,000 an hour or $2,300 a minute. He is taxing the Canadian people $2,300 a minute today more than is needed to meet legitimate expenses of government, including the heavy cost of rearmament.


Gordon Graydon: Get out your watch, Doug.


Mr. Abbott:: We will have it down to seconds, now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When the minister asks us to believe that the expenditures may be at a heavier rate during the second part of this year, let us not forget that these taxes have not been in effect for the full period of this fiscal year to date; that the increases in the indirect taxes did not come into effect until some weeks after the opening of the fiscal year, and the increases in the direct taxes took effect on payrolls only from July 1, and on those who pay their income tax by the quarter, only on September 30; so that these

The Address-Mr. Fleming figures of colossal revenue today do not begin to reflect the full weight of the increases in taxation that the minister and the government have imposed upon the Canadian people.
This government is abetting inflation by its fiscal policies. The treasury has been the biggest gainer of all from inflation, and it is no good now for the Minister of Finance to come forward and try to appear in the role of the sincere doctor who, overcome by his benevolent intentions, has to prescribe a poisonous concoction for the patient. The fact of the matter is that the people of Canada wll not forget the minister's sense of timing. We will not forget that we had this kind of guff handed out to us from the treasury benches session after session in the post-war years. We will not forget that we were told about the virtues of inaccurate budgeting that resulted in adventitious surpluses of colossal proportions. That was the story we heard from the treasury benches in 1946, 1947 and 1948. But then came 1949. The kind of conditions required for giving full effect to this weird theory of cyclical budgeting existed in 1949. But we will not forget that in March, 1949, the minister chose to reverse policy and reduce taxes, and after he delivered his budget speech to the house on. March 22, 1949, we read in the press that "he came out in the Liberal lobby and he grinned, took off his big brown rimmed glasses, rocked from foot to foot on his heels, as he does." Then it says-this is from the Windsor Star of March 24, 1949:
He looked across the faces at the retired prime minister and said, "as Mr. King says, boys, the timing of what you do can be just as important as the thing you're doing."
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have not forgotten that, and any attempt now to jam down the throats of parliament or of the people of this country the same old guff about the virtues of these adventitious, colossal surpluses will, I think, be met by the memory of the Canadian people who will view all this as just a hollow sham, and will realize from the way in which the government is soaking the people today that there will be no election this year, and moreover, that the government will hold off these by-elections in the ridings of Calgary West and Ontario just as long as they possibly can, and they will continue to deny representation to the electors of those constituencies just as long as they can.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would not count on that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, I may tell the Minister of Finance that we on this side of the house would welcome the government calling these by-elections at once, because we would be very pleased to submit to the arbitrament

of the electorate, the Canadian electorate of those two ridings, those same issues as to government policies as were submitted to four constituencies in widely scattered parts of this country in June last, with results that this government would do well to heed before it is too late.
Mr. Speaker, I throw a challenge to those members of this house who still feel in any degree disposed to follow the leading of this government. No private member in this house supporting the government has in this debate to date uttered one word in support of the government's taxing policies. You will see that I excluded the one member, the bon. member for Coast-Capilano, who has so spoken, because he is a parliamentary assistant, and we know that these parliamentary assistants are chosen to be exponents, though not the architects, of government policies. Is there one, just one private Liberal member, in this house who will have the temerity during the course of this debate to rise in his place in the house and say: I not only condone, I support this government's taxing policies? Before this debate runs its course let us have one member supporting the government, one private member, rise and say: "I approve these policies; I like the way the Minister of Finance is applying the taxing screws to the Canadian taxpayers".


Mr. Casselman:: They would send him down to the corner.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is a challenge, and I will be interested to know what the Liberal members in this house have to say about it.
My time is almost up. I had hoped to say something about the way in which the minister has allowed the money supply to outrun the increase in production in this country. Since 1939 the value of production has increased twofold, whereas the money supply has increased fourfold, and that is a matter within the power of the government to deal with. But they do not deal with it, and price levels have risen in consequence.
There is another gross and calamitous failure on the part of government policy-to grapple with excessive expenditure. Let us not forget, in examining the figures of expenditures of this government for the first five months of this fiscal year-I am told those for the sixth month will not be available until the day after tomorrow-that the government cannot ascribe the increase in expenditures for those five months simply to defence expenditures. I took the trouble to refer to those, and I find that government expenditures this fiscal year for the first five months amounted to $1,015 million, whereas in 1950 in the same period they amounted to

$774 million. When you subtract the expenditures of the Department of Defence Production, which was not in existence in 1950, which expenditures this year amount to $6,756,000 for five months, or those of the Department of National Defence which in 1950 in the first five months were $149 million and in the first five months of this year were $365 million, and take out these expenditures on defence, you will find that the expenditures of the government on nondefence departments in the first five months this year amount to $643 million, whereas in 1950 they were $625 million. This government in the first five months of this fiscal year has spent $18 million more than it did in the same period in 1950 on non-defence items.
Where are the fruits of all these efforts the Minister of Finance proclaimed in such laudatory terms in the budget speech last spring-these terrific efforts to reduce nondefence expenditures? Where are the results? There has been an increase of $18 million in five months.	That is a
remarkable testimonial to the effectiveness of the efforts of the Minister of Finance and his policies. They talk about reducing expenditures while, at the same time, they increase expenditures. The best they were able to offer was a proposed reduction of $35 million on non-defence items in a total budget of $3,700 million, or less than one per cent of the budget. And what have we got? We have an increase, instead of a decrease, in non-defence expenditures.
At the same time, every time anyone in the house proposes some method or some machinery to enable the House of Commons to grapple effectively with this problem of extravagance in expenditures, the government rallies its forces to defeat the effort-every time. Every time we propose a committee to scrutinize estimates more carefully-oh no, the government will have none of it. They defeat the proposal. Every time we propose a committee to survey proposed expenditures on national defence, those colossal expenditures-no, they will have none of it. Every time a proposal of that kind is made in the house, so that the House of Commons may perform more effectively its proper task of scrutinizing and controlling expenditures, it is wilfully defeated by the government opposite. They do not want any help which might result in reducing expenditures or bringing about more careful scrutiny of proposed expenditures.
My time has now expired. I had hoped to speak about the failure of government housing policies, but I shall have to postpone that for another occasion.
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
In conclusion I would remind the government opposite that last June, in the results of four by-elections, they heard a public rebuke-rebuke of their arrogance, rebuke of their wilfulness, rebuke of their policies which are doing so much damage to the economy of Canada, and to the budget of every Canadian family. That was an expression of public indignation concerning government policy. It is a thousand pities we are not going to have a general election this year. But at least if the government will risk a test of public opinion in the two vacant constituencies an opportunity will again be given to the people of Canada, which apparently they are not to have effectively on any vote in this house, to express their condemnation of government policies which are callously imposing hardships and suffering upon the people of Canada today.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I shall not be able to follow the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) in his forceful speech. But I will say this, so that he will not feel I have ignored him altogether, that in hoping for an election this year he should also keep in mind that the most important question facing the people of Canada today is the high cost of living.
Before the by-elections of last June the Progressive Conservative party indicated it was willing to do something about the high cost of living, and, I believe, the people took them at their word. They thought that in that party they had, if not a new at least a rejuvenated Conservative party. However, after the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) spoke last Friday it was clear that they still have the same old Conservative party. The results, then, of an election now may not be as satisfactory to that party as the hon. member for Eglinton would have us believe.
We meet here, Mr. Speaker, at a-time of great international tension. Hardly a day goes by that the world is not disturbed by some new incident, while the old problems remain unsolved. We are also meeting at a time of worsening conditions in our own country, a time of increasing distress for large numbers of our population. At no time since the bad days of the thirties have I, in going among the people, heard so many complaints and seen so much evidence of distress.
These conditions did not develop since we left for our homes last June. They did not begin even with the trouble in Korea. I think we should keep that in mind, because that is the impression we are given in the house. The problems of the low-income groups in our population have been increasing and intensifying for the last six years.

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
I should like to add my voice to those who have already spoken on behalf of war veterans, those on disability pensions and the recipients of war veterans allowances. I was glad to hear the statement made in the house last week by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe). I hope the steps taken to ease the difficulties of war veterans will be adequate, and that they will apply not only to those on disability pensions but to those on war veterans allowances as well. Not only do I urge the government to make some improvement in the payments to war veterans, but also that something be done to ease the circumstances of others who have to live on low fixed incomes. In this group I have in mind superannuated civil servants and railway employees retired years ago on pensions which were entirely inadequate for any sort of decent living.
The time has come in Canada when we should think in terms of providing a basic income below which no individual's income would be allowed to fall. There is no good reason, economic or otherwise, why people who have built up the country with their toil and sweat should be compelled in their old age or because of some other incapacity to live in misery and want.
Like so many of the speakers who have preceded me, I wish to give the rest of my time to some observations on the high cost of living which in my opinion, as I have already said, is the most important question facing the people of Canada at this time. Many good speeches have been made. I should like to refer to some of the things that were said with which I disagree as well as some of the things with which I agree, but time does not permit me to deal with all of them. I wish, however, to make some reference to the speech made last Thursday by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) in this debate. He received so many congratulations on his speech that I hope he will not take it amiss of me if I presume to congratulate him also. His speech was clearly and forcefully delivered. It was well supported with quotations which were designed to strengthen the point of view that he was taking. I was particularly impressed by the glowing picture he painted of Canada and the United States in the closing words of his speech as the most desirable countries in the world in which to live. But despite the many fine qualities of his speech I could not help feeling, while I was listening to him, that it would bring but cold comfort to the growing army of horse-meat eaters in British Columbia. I doubt if cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants have any understanding of the depths of poverty into which the people of this country are sinking. I had a personal

letter from a friend the other day and I wish to quote a sentence or two from it. He says:
You mention in your news article that the cost of living will most likely be a hot question during this session. I was saying to Doris the other day-
That is his wife.
-that during the war things like horse meat, margarine, powdered milk and the like seemed a long way away and were linked only with the hungry Europeans. It is a very real thing to us now though. I don't see how even the Liberals can ignore the situation much longer.
Here is an ordinary family in not opulent but comfortable circumstances, and they find that horse meat, margarine and powdered milk, things they would not even think of a few years ago, are the main items in their diet.
Mr. Fleming. The fruits of sixteen years of Liberal government.


Angus MacInnis: Sixteen years of Liberalism, five years of Conservatism and several more years of Liberalism before that. The tree being what it is you should not be surprised at the fruit.
However, I am glad the hon. member for Coast-Capilano and I agree on one thing. We agree that there is no shortage of consumer goods in Canada. He made a statement to that effect, I said "hear, hear", and he remarked on our agreement. Before we can deal effectively with inflation we must get our thinking clear on some of these points. If inflation is what we are told it is, if it is caused by what we are told it is caused by, too many dollars chasing too few goods, how can you explain prices going up when goods are gathering dust on the shelves of stores and warehouses?
When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke in this debate he also referred to growing inventories. I asked him how he explained rising prices in the face of a condition like that. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance took a page and a half to explain why there is inflation; too much money, debts of the last war, diversion of men and materials to war production, the war in Korea, enormous capital investment, and so on and so forth. I shall quote his summary of the situation as he saw it. It is not very clear but it is the best I could get. At page 159 of Hansard he said:
Then came Korea, and this steady rise became a very steep rise. First of all, there was panic buying by consumers who remembered the shortages of the last war when all our energies were turned to producing the materials of war and not consumer goods. Then came stockpiling by both the free nations and the iron curtain nations, in anticipation of defence needs. These things led to increased demand which forced up prices. Then we began diverting to defence needs more and more of our world resources in manpower and in material. The incomes that these men received were competing

for the consumer goods produced by the rest of the world. The materials taken away for capital purposes for defence of course are lost to consumer production. Because of these further factors, prices began to rise still more.
But despite all these things which added to consumer income, the fact remains that in Canada consumer goods are increasing. I have here the Canadian Statistical Review for September. It has this to say:
During the first seven months of this year, the index of industrial production averaged 12 per cent higher than the comparable period of 1950. While the increase over last year was running at a rate of about 14 per cent for the first five months, the figures for June and July reflect a curtailment of this trend. The June-over-June and July-over-July comparisons showed gains of only about 7 per cent. The drop in industrial output in July as compared to June can be partly attributed to the practice of many firms to close down their plant for summer holidays. There is as yet no compensation for this in the seasonal adjustment. Meanwhile the value of manufacturing inventories continued to rise in July. Since April, the increase has been more than 12 per cent. As wholesale prices during this period rose by less than one per cent, the recent gain may be attributed largely to increases In volume of stocks.
It is well to know that it is real goods that we have, not just figures in books. I should like those who are urging greater production to note this and see what hope they have of getting it. The Review goes on to say:
Undoubtedly some manufacturers will take advantage of the holiday shutdowns to reduce excess inventories.
Prices are not to be reduced to enable people to buy more, but production is going to be curtailed so that inventories may be reduced. After reading that I am surprised that people have the effrontery to stand up here and say they are representing the people of Canada, and then they say they are opposed to controls. All this verbiage by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) does not explain why prices are going up when, as I said before, goods are gathering dust on retailers' shelves and in wholesale warehouses.
Perhaps I may bring some other facts on this point to the attention of hon. members which they may consider if they have not already done so. The Prime Minister said in his speech on the address that price levels cannot be held fixed in a free economy. I ask the Prime Minister and every member of this house: is this a free economy? How free is it? I have here a clipping from the Winnipeg Tribune of October 3, 1951, referring to the decision of Mr. Justice McBride in the bread combines trial. It is interesting to note some of the comments of the justice in this case. The article reads:
The justice said the bakeries were more interested in price than quality, service and salesmanship.
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
Of course they are interested in price. They are not producing bread because the people need bread; they are producing bread to make a profit. In his judgment Mr. Justice McBride referred to certain actions by the six companies involved which included the illegitimate use of Alberta government stationery. The article continues:
He termed this a "fraudulent system ... a system of misrepresentation and fraud, a system of plunder comparable to meeting a man on the street and forcibly robbing him of his money."
The man who goes out on the street and holds up another man is taking a chance, but these people were taking very few chances because, as the justice pointed out in another place in his judgment, they had been doing it since 1933. The article continues:
He referred to the master bakers associations in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia as "the effective machinery of control of the baking industry in the three provinces."
Who says this is a free economy? Not Mr. Justice McBride. The article continues:
From 1933 to 1950 a closely-knit and smooth-working network was spread over the three provinces. He said that under the effective control of the accused corporations the associations speedily degenerated.
Mr. Justice McBride said the main purpose of the associations then was to fix and maintain uniform prices established from time to time, arbitrarily raising and lowering them, and to prevent and lessen competition in other ways.
The Prime Minister told us that we cannot hold prices stable in a free economy, but the bakeries in western Canada were able to hold prices stable. Our economy is so free, as the Prime Minister stated in his speech, that the government is going to make it illegal for manufacturers to control resale prices. Several newspaper editorials have been quoted during this debate; even the Prime Minister quoted some. I should like to quote briefly from an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Daily Province of September 6, 1951. It is headed "We want action, not talk" and reads:
Prime Minister St. Laurent's speech about inflation was very much like a man trying to argue with a bull that is chasing him around a field. It was clever talk, but it did no good whatever.
Canadians, who had just learned that the cost of living had increased another 1-3 points in July to a new high of 188-9, and were expecting the Prime Minister to outline some definite program to halt inflation, were bitterly disappointed.
Instead of plans to apply brakes to living costs we were given a lecture on the ABC's of inflation and some skilful apologies for the government's failure to do much about it.
In fact, most of Mr. St. Laurent's time was given to explaining the things that the government could not do and had resolved not to try to do, rather than the things that it proposed to attempt.

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
Surely that is a correct picture of government inaction, not only during the last few months but during the last six years. The editorial continues:
The Prime Minister's polished rationalization of the government's position does him credit. He made the best of his case. But if he had been subject to a little cross-examination that case would have fallen apart.
He exhorted us, for instance, to save as much as we can and postpone buying the things we can get along without.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has also been exhorting us to save, but when he and the Prime Minister think of saving, surely ithey 'have in mind people whose idea of saving is a question of whether they will buy a high-priced car or one not so high-priced. The editorial continues:
Countless Canadian families could tell him that high prices are forcing them to save every penny they can get. As for postponing purchase of things we can do without, there are a good many things we can't do without.
Let me say to the Minister of Finance that the question facing a great many people is not one of forgoing buying things they can do without, it is a question of having the money to buy the things they cannot do without. The editorial concludes:
The cost of living index didn't move up because of the price of champagne and caviar. It rose because the cost of ordinary foods, clothing, fuel and other prime necessities had gone up. We can't postpone food and clothing.
It is time we realized that, and realized also that many people in Canada are postponing the purchase of food and clothing at the expense of deteriorating health and character. The reason prices are going up while inventories are growing has not been explained by the bedtime stories told the house by the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, soothing as those stories may sound to the ears of those who want to believe them. The reason prices are going up while inventories are increasing is the greed of certain people who have the mistaken idea that the purpose of production is not to provide for the needs of the people but to make a profit for the owners of the capital used in production. I do not often find myself agreeing with the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), but I certainly agreed with him the other day when he said-I am not quoting his exact words, just paraphrasing-that prices are going up, not because there are scarcities but because certain people are just plain hogs.


Mr. Blackmore:: I will repeat it.


Angus MacInnis: Keplying to the member for P.osetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) the member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) blamed

food subsidies in Britain for the rise in prices there. Surely even to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano that must be sheer economic nonsense. If the British government were paying subsidies without price control, those subsidies might cause a rise in the price of consumer goods. Subsidies do not add to income; they distribute income more equitably. They enable more people to buy things, not the whole community to buy more things. They do not, as a matter of fact, put more money into circulation.
Let us get the facts clear in regard to Britain's troubles with high prices. Britain must import most of her food, clothing and raw materials. If the prices of these things go up, it is pretty hard to prevent consumer prices going up. This is exactly what has happened. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano quoted from the London Economist. May I quote from another paper that is well-known to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, the Manchester Guardian, which in the issue of July 6, 1951, pointed out that the total price increase in over-all imports between the first half of 1950 and the first half of 1951 was 45 per cent; for food, drinks and tobacco, 23 per cent; for raw materials, 71 per cent; and for manufactured goods, 46 per cent. I am not quite sure I have the figures correctly, but I understand that the increase in the price of exports from Great Britain to other parts of the world has been only 18 per cent. When you pay 45 per cent more for the goods that go into those exports and only get an increase of 18 per cent in the sale price of those exports, then you are bound to get into difficulties.
In dealing with this cost of living situation, the C.C.F. group proposed a subamendment to the amendment moved by the official opposition. We added the words:
. . . such as the making of provision for price controls and the payment of subsidies, where necessary, so as to equalize the sacrifices our people are called upon to make at this time.
As has already been stated, that amendment is similar to the one we introduced last year. The words at the end, "to equalize the sacrifices our people are called upon to make at this time", are different from the words in the amendment of last year. We put those words in because of a speech made not so long ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). He said the people of Canada would have to make sacrifices because of our defence program. We accept that. The Prime Minister also said that unfortunately high prices do not affect us all in the same way. It is because we want high prices to affect us all as nearly as possible in the same way so that, as nearly as possible, we shall be making equal sacrifices, that we moved the subamendment.

What is the situation today? Every time prices rise some people improve their economic position; some people have more money to spend on the things they want. With other people the result is just the opposite; their economic position is worsened. Every time there is an increase in prices some get an improvement in their standard of living while the standard of living of others goes down. As a matter of ascertainable fact, this inflation is increasing the wealth of some, while at the same time it is sinking others lower and lower into poverty. Unless the government and opposition are prepared to do something about that, something that will not just keep the poor where they are now but raise their standard of living, we are not doing what we were sent here by the people of Canada to do. We may be doing what a few people think we ought to do, the people who are benefiting by inflation.
Evidently the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) do not like our subamendment. On Friday last the leader of the opposition made a second speech in this debate and took considerable time to explain to the house why his party could not support the C.C.F. amendment. The strange thing about that speech, and I read it carefully, was that it was almost identical with the speech he made in this house on February 12 last to explain why he and his party would support an amendment similar to the one he is rejecting now. I said I read it carefully, and it is very much the same speech. On page 219 of Hansard the leader of the opposition is reported as having said:
If it is true, and I am sure it is, that the heaviest inflationary pressures are still to come, then this is the time when, through legislation adopted by this house or through orders in council passed by the government-
That is getting rather tender towards orders in council.
-under the extremely wide powers of the emergency legislation already in force, this subject should be tackled without further delay.
I would say there is complete agreement on that point of view, but what does the leader of the opposition propose in the amendment that he introduced? 1 referred to it at the time as a milk and water amendment which they even do not want taken as a motion of want of confidence in the government. After listening to the hon. member for Eglinton this afternoon, do you think any Conservative member on the opposition side of the house can have any confidence in this government? Yet they do not want to have 94699

24>
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis this amendment accepted as a motion of want of confidence. This is the amendment:
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that in the opinion of this house adequate steps should be taken to combat inflation and deal effectively with the high cost of living.
Amen to that. What steps?-that is the question. Unless we are prepared to state the steps we are willing to take, there is no use saying that we would like to have such steps taken.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) agrees.


Angus MacInnis: As I said, I read that speech carefully, and I find in it a few contradictions. For instance, at page 223 I find this:
To an extent that has certainly not been true since I came into this House of Commons the members of the party which has put forward the subamendment have made it perfectly clear that what they are asking for are over-all and rigid controls such as constitute part of their idea of socialist planning for the country.
Then in the next paragraph:
We have had the representatives of the socialist party talking in this house as though they were the exponents of free enterprise, completely forgetting the dogma of the Regina manifesto. We have heard assurances in this house that they were not asking for the imposition of continuing controls.
Well, we are not. We are asking for continuing controls until such time as the law of supply and demand will assure every one of the people of this country a fair share of the production of the country. That is all that we are asking.
Let us now turn to the arguments advanced by the leader of the opposition supporting our amendment last year, which I said was similar except for a few words. As reported at page 292 of the first volume of Hansard of the first session of 1951 he said:
In so far as our amendment is concerned, Mr. Speaker,-
This is the leader of the opposition speaking, -it was intended to cover the field of inflation. We express regret that the government had failed to take effective measures to combat inflation and the rapidly rising cost of living. These are inclusive terms. Certainly these terms include price controls where price controls are necessary. Certainly, these words include subsidies where subsidies are necessary. But they include several other things as well. To any of those who may find some measure of amusement in an assertion of that kind, may I point out that I had the responsibility-and I accepted it-of introducing certain subsidies in the province of Ontario at a time when the dominion Minister of Agriculture was failing to protect certain of our important crops that faced a very dangerous situation indeed.
There you have it. The leader of the opposition and, I assume, his followers were not opposed to controls eight months ago, and they were not opposed to subsidies eight

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis months ago, if these things were necessary. Those words "where necessary" are definitely in our amendment.
Then at page 293:
In this subamendment there are the governing words "if necessary".
Those governing words are in the amendment we moved the other day. To continue: And that is exactly the meaning that I take from these words. But if it had been intended to amplify the words in our motion we would have amplified them a great deal more than this. The fact that we have not, however, does not make the reference to these objectionable: because quite contrary to what some hon. members have suggested, this subamendment does not leave the whole question of inflation upon these two subjects alone. It says: "such as price controls and subsidies where necessary".
Those exact words are in our amendment moved the other day.
Then we turn to page 295. The leader of the opposition continues:
For the reasons I have mentioned it is my intention to support the amendment to the amendment. In doing so I have indicated that the subjects discussed are subjects to which we have referred. If I had drafted the subamendment I might have changed the wording of it, and would: but what I point out is that the one way in which members of the house have an opportunity to protest against the inaction of the government is to vote on a subject of this kind without too much attempt to get down to the last possible meaning of every word in the amendment to the amendment now before us.
There you have the competent lawyer making the case; but when he had to make the case last Friday against supporting our amendment, it is extremely weak in comparison. It is weak because he had no case last Friday, that is if he had a case last session, and he did. When you come to this complete somersault, is it not conceivable and understandable that one should ask: Whose was the still, small voice that whispered in the ear of the leader of the opposition that he should pipe down on controls?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was not the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). He has not a still, small voice.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was not mine.


Angus MacInnis: I am quite willing to leave it to them. If they do not support our amendment, it will not hurt the C.C.F. in the least. It will hurt the Conservative party because, as I have already said, I am satisfied that if anything was of assistance to them in Prince Edward Island, in Ontario and in Manitoba during the by-elections last session, it was that they had given an indication that they were willing to deal effectively with the most important question facing the people of Canada. Once they have departed from that course, they are the same old Conservative
[Mr. Maclnnis.)
party, and I am satisfied that the people of Canada will have nothing to do with them.
I do not know just how much time I have left, Mr. Speaker; but as long as you have not called me to order I assume that I have a few more minutes. I want to say a word about increased production, a matter which has been mentioned so often. I have said in this house many times that what we need in this country if the standard of living is to be raised is increased production. But how can you go to the workers today-and it is the workers who increase production-and ask them to increase production if that increase is going to result, as it is resulting, in shutdowns and unemployment rather than in a lowering of prices? I have in my hand a news release from the Department of Labour under date of September 5, 1951, and I want to read briefly from it:
Lay-offs and short time work, partly seasonal in nature, continued in the consumer goods field. The slowdown, which earlier was concentrated in automobile, household electrical appliance, clothing and leather industries, spread to iron and steel, furniture and primary textile plants during July and August. In the textile and clothing industries alone it is estimated that at least 3,000 workers have been laid off and 12,000 are working three days a week or less-a drop in activity greater than normal for this time of year. In the other industries mentioned above, non-seasonal factors have caused the release of almost 5,000 workers. These lay-offs have been particularly heavy in some centres, but in the main, those released have found alternative employment.
From that I want to show you that as long as the purpose of production is profit, as soon as the goods that are produced cannot be sold at high prices the employers will lay off the workers until the inventories are down again. Then they will take them on again for two days a week, or three days a week, or six days a week, provided there is a good demand; but prices will not come down. Therefore the issue facing this country, the issue facing this parliament is: Are we to allow private enterprise to control the standard of living of our people by controlling prices? I say again, as has so often been said in this house from this corner that it is no longer a question of controls; it is a question of who is going to impose the controls,-a government responsible to the people of this country, or private interests responsible to no one but their own greed?


John Lambert Gibson: Mr. Speaker, today, as usual, I am impressed by the very obvious sincerity of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis); but as usual, also, I am amazed at the conclusions drawn by a man of his apparent intelligence. He took some exception, of course, to the point made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) the other day. The leader of the

opposition made what I considered a very good point when he said that the historic objective of the C.C.F. party of course had been controls. He felt that the difficulties we are passing through now constitute a God-given opportunity to them to press forward that policy.
It seems to me the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Cold well) always presents in a most plausible manner-as plausible as any man in public life in Canada, I believe-those innumerable nebulous theories that he has to cure almost anything. I sometimes wish he was not so plausible because I think of some of the members of his party, particularly one man in British Columbia-he comes from my riding unfortunately-who came out boldly so we know exactly where he stood, and said that the first and primary duty of the C.C.F. party when it comes to power will be the bold and ruthless removal from private hands of the means of production. It would appear to me that if they could profit from any difficulties we have now, that would be their ultimate objective.
Another thing that annoys me very much about the C.C.F. party is that they always seem to be like the pharisee in the temple: "Thank God we are not as other men." I sometimes look at the business tycoons sitting behind the leader of the C.C.F. party, well dressed, sleek and well fed. They are in all phases of our life, too. They are in agriculture, in business, in merchandising-


Angus MacInnis: Railroading.


An hon. Member:: Preaching.


John Lambert Gibson: I often wonder what happens at these little caucuses they have once a week, I presume. I wonder whether they ever ask these businessmen questions as they sit around. I wonder whether the businessman is ever asked just what philosophy he follows in his successful business. I am quite sure that if the businessmen were honest-and knowing them I am sure they would be honest-they would say to the leader:	Boss, I
am sorry, but I buy as cheaply as I can and I sell for as much as I can get. I sometimes wonder why the leader of the C.C.F. party does not invite more of his members to speak their minds. I like to recall what happened one night during last session. One of his distinguished business colleagues rose in his place and in a perfectly open way said: "Do not believe all this malarky you hear from my party about this excess profits tax. As far as I am concerned the Minister of Finance is getting far too much money from me now. He takes all the cash money I make out of my business, and all he leaves me is the accounts receivable and the fixed assets I have around me." He said: "As far as I am concerned,
The Address-Mr. Gibson taxes are plenty high now." As I say, I am quite sure the businessmen of the party would be the first to say they are not profiteering. As far as the party is concerned, from my observations here it is those members down there who have nothing to sell but their intellectual capacity who are the real profiteers at the present time.
In this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate both the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons). The mover of course spoke with eloquence. There was great substance in his remarks. I envy him his capacity to speak not only in his native tongue, French, but in English. I wish that I myself were able to do as well as he did. To the seconder I say that he painted a glowing canvas of that great country he represents in the northland of Canada. I am sure the people who sent him down here to represent them must take great pride in the way he has conducted their business here. I should just like to say, too, that my good friend the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) impressed me greatly with his speech the other night, when he referred to the great opportunities in the north country. He said he hoped the immigrants who were coming here would not be led to believe that the only place to live in Canada was where there was running water, electric lights and all the amenities you find in our large cities. Actually the great opportunities that are in that part of the country for these newcomers were here for our grandfathers when they came, and I certainly hope the organizers of the C.C.F. party do not meet these immigrants when they come down the gangplank and say to them that all they can work in this country is a 40-hour week, because if that ever happens they will never amount to very much either.
I should like to say a word about Comox-Alberni. This is a memorable day for that constituency, since Their Royal Highnesses are paying it a visit. I am sure hon. members would expect that they would go to Comox-Alberni for this well deserved rest. They are at Eaglecrest today, midway between the villages of Parksville and Qualicum in my riding, and I am quite sure the good people of that area, with their innate courtesy and consideration, will allow our royal couple the well earned rest and relaxation which is their due after their long trip across this continent. If I had the gift of tongues, like the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene), perhaps I could paint a word picture of the magnificent scene that will greet them out there at Eaglecrest. They can look across the sparkling gulf of Georgia and see Lasqueti island,
366	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gibson with Texada island behind it, then move on to a further magnificent view of the Coast-Capilano area and then the great snow-covered peaks over there. I can assure you they have chosen a place that is unmatched in Canada; and I certainly feel proud that they have chosen this place for their holiday.
I am very pleased with the announcement by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) in regard to pensions. During the discussion we had with the Legion prior to coming here my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), said he felt that no action would be taken by the government during this session. I made a contrary statement. I said I thought the government would give consideration to it at this time. I am glad to say that while I cannot vie with him as a military expert, I seem to have more facility for gazing into a crystal ball. When at the next session the committee studies war veterans allowances, I would ask that they give close consideration to permitting a larger allowable income to persons on war veterans allowances.
Another point which interests me is the fact that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) is going to Japan to discuss a fisheries treaty with that country. I join with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in expressing my regret that it was not possible to make this a part of the Japanese peace treaty. I am glad to see, however, that it is being followed up at the present time. I will say it is recognized from coast to coast that our Minister of Fisheries has done an outstanding job in administering the fisheries problems of Canada. I am glad to see the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in his seat because I would call to his attention the fact that, so far as British Columbia is concerned, this is probably the most important external treaty we will sign for a long time. I would like to think that in going over there the Minister of Fisheries might have the advice and support of a member of parliament from British Columbia. There are numerous members from British Columbia who are well qualified to take this position. When I think of all the representatives we have sent to ILO, to the meetings of the UN food organization, and to the various United Nations meetings held in all parts of the world, and quite properly so-and I have taken a keen interest in the growth in stature of the young men who have had the opportunity to go overseas and mix with delegates from other nations of the world- I suggest it is not yet too late for the Prime Minister to select from among the very capable young men sitting behind him someone who could accompany the minister to Japan,


who would be in a position to know the situation exactly in connection with this important matter. Businessmen representing the fisheries industry in British Columbia are going over there, and I feel that in order to have continuity of knowledge in regard to the fisheries treaty the Prime Minister might see fit to follow my suggestion.
I do not want to advise all the members of the cabinet, but I have a word for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). The next time he talks with his chief dietitian I suggest that he discuss with that official the possibility of serving some canned salmon to our armed forces. I am told that meat is the only protein food served in any large quantity. While I am not making a sales talk in respect of canned salmon, I would ask the minister to see if it is not possible to use that very excellent food in supplying our armed services.
Then I should like to say a word to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). I know he is familiar with the problem we face in connection with logging in British Columbia. If you are a large million-dollar concern producing logs, and have logging machinery, large timber limits and logging trucks, those logging trucks are brought into Canada at a low rate of duty and are exempt from sales tax. I know the historic position of the Liberal party has always been that the small man in business should be given every opportunity to compete with the large businessman. In this instance, however, that does not apply, as the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) will testify. If you are a large logger, doing both logging and log hauling, you receive the benefits to which I have referred. I have the greatest confidence in the Minister of National Revenue and his very capable staff. They tell me they would like to give some amelioration to the log-hauling contractor, but that there are some administrative difficulties. My experience with the minister's staff leads me to believe that something can be worked out, and I would ask the minister to make an effort to see that it is done at the earliest possible time.
Another small matter bothered me while I was out in Comox-Alberni this past summer. Looking at the paper one morning I saw that there was a vacancy in respect of a county court judgeship in the county of Nanaimo, and I noted that a Vancouver man had been appointed to fill the vacancy. It is not my intention to interfere in any way with judicial appointments because I believe that, generally speaking, a good job has been done in that regard. However, one has food

for thought when he looks at the population of Vancouver island and sees that we have only two county court judges for a vast area in which there are 200,000 people while, on the other hand, in Prince Edward Island, with its 80,000 people, or about one-third of the number on Vancouver island, they have three county court judges and three supreme court judges. I do not raise this point with any desire to be parochial or to create animosity. I do feel, however, that in this respect Vancouver island has not been treated justly. I bring this to the attention of the minister so that when there is a new appointment out there-I understand a vacancy is to be created; the minister will correct me if I am wrong-he will try to make amends for the obvious injustice the people of Vancouver island have suffered in this regard.
Before leaving this subject may I hasten to tell the minister that I cast no reflection whatever upon the gentleman last appointed to the bench from Vancouver. He is a personal friend of mine, a man of outstanding qualifications. And, may I add for the information of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), he is not even a Liberal. Whether or not that gives him any special qualification I cannot say; but certainly he was not appointed on the basis of political considerations.
May I draw to the attention of the Prime Minister one further point, that on Vancouver island we cannot rival Prince Edward Island when it comes to senatorships. With their 80,000 population they have four, at the rate of one senator for each 20,000. On the other hand, through general practice it has become the rule to have one senator from Vancouver island out of the six from British Columbia. We do not expect to have four, as they have in Prince Edward Island. I would point out, however, that for almost four years there has been a vacancy in the senatorship from Vancouver island. The very distinguished gentleman who filled that position found that, due to old age, he was no longer capable of discharging his responsibilities as a senator. Despite many comments made outside the house respecting the value of the Senate, I think all hon. members know the contribution it makes to our public life. The fact that Vancouver island, with its importance industrially, is not represented in the Senate, is one of those situations which should be corrected as soon as possible.
It will be recalled that last spring I opposed the payment of $65 million to prairie farmers. I said at that time I sincerely hoped the government had finally reached the end of
The Address-Mr. Gibson these handouts. Consequently I was somewhat shocked the other day when I picked up a newspaper and read, instead of learning it through an announcement in the house, that another $1,500,000 had been voted to the apple growers of the dominion. I have no desire to say anything derogatory about the apple growers, but perhaps the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will give us an explanation of that $1,500,000 payment. I should like to know whether all we need to do to pry something out of the government is to come down here with a tale of woe; because if all that is needed is a tale of woe I can give you a dandy. We had a lot of trouble in Comox-Alberni and along the entire coast region with forest fires this year. We were not able to work most of the summer, and many loggers in my riding suffered a great economic loss. Therefore I am curious to know on what basis this $1,500,000 payment was made to the apple growers.
Incidentally I might say to the Minister of Finance something I am sure he already knows. I cannot think of anything more inflationary than the payment of $1,500,000 on that basis. So far as the Department of Finance is concerned, I have a very high respect for it, and I must say that I agree with their general policy. I was quite impressed with the speech made the other day by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair). I thought he set out the situation so clearly that even a non-economist like myself could follow his line of reasoning. It seems to me that in some phases of their administration the burden is not being borne equally all across Canada. I should like to point out to the Minister of Finance that if a logger in my riding wants to buy a new automobile he must pay $327 more, because of freight charges, than a logger in Ontario. He must also pay approximately $100 in a provincial sales tax. I know the Minister of Finance will say immediately: "do not tack on that provincial sales tax. I do not know anything about that, and I have got nothing to do with it". However, I would point out that eventually the provincial sales tax comes back to him because after all it is spent on the building of roads and general services. The sales tax does accrue to him eventually on that basis.
I say it is not fair that the logger in Comox-Alberni should have to pay $200 more in cash when he buys a car plus about $18 more per month out of his pay cheque than the man in Ontario. The answer one receives is that it is impossible to divide these things into compartments. I see that the parliamentary assistant is listening to me with great care. He may be able to do something for us,

The Address-Mr. Gibson because he and I are in the same economic bloc. I say to him there is no reason in the world that the down payment of half cash for a new car and the monthly payments should not be computed on the factory cost of an automobile so that citizens in all parts of this country will bear the same share of the burden we are facing at this time. As to the balance, let them have an extra three or four months. There is no administrative difficulty about doing it, certainly not with all the galaxy of talent they have in the Department of Finance. I am quite sure they could work out a simple matter of that kind.
There is one thing I should like to say to the Minister of Finance with respect to secondhand cars, but before I do so I want to say that he is a man I admire greatly for his courage. When rental controls on business accommodation were being removed, I can think of nobody in Canada whose riding was more affected than that of the minister. Nevertheless he had the courage to go ahead despite all the pressure put on him. He did the thing that was right. In saying this to him I sincerely hope he will realize that I am not making the point that he has engaged in discrimination so far as his own riding is concerned. However, when you come to a district like Comox-Albemi, where there is no transportation system, no Toronto subway-


An hon. Member:: Neither has Toronto.


John Lambert Gibson: No, but you have a surface transportation system. For ten cents people can go to and from their work, but in a place like Comox-Alberni there is no public transit system at all. Therefore everybody has to have at least four wheels and a gas engine, some kind of car.


George Alexander Cruickshank: A Cadillac.


John Lambert Gibson: The loggers in that region
should have the opportunity to buy secondhand automobiles without having to pay 50 per cent down and the balance in twelve months. Automobiles are part of their working equipment, like caulked boots. At the present time secondhand cars are piling up on the used car lots, and I do not see how it could possibly contribute to inflation if the minister said: "We will arrange it so that, as far as secondhand cars are concerned, we will accept 40 per cent down and the balance spread over eighteen months." I believe that would be fair. I think the minister would be doing something for the industry, the car manufacturers and car dealers who are probably bearing more than their fair share of the defence burden. They have been pretty hard hit. I appreciate why it has to be done, but at the same time I think we can take care of the used car situation so far as the dealers are concerned

and give considerable help to the people of my riding. It should be a decided service to them.
I appreciated very much the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) coming to my aid with respect to the so-called gratuitous insult I received from the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) the other day when he referred to me as an old Tory. I was rather surprised when he called me that in reply to a remark I made which he of course knows to be true. Everything always has been rationed in this world, and not necessarily by the purse. Certainly it has been so for me for most of my life. If things are not rationed by the purse they are rationed by one's capacity, intelligence, appetite or desire. Everything is rationed. I often think of old John D. Rockefeller, the richest man in the world. He used to have a bowl of crackers and milk for lunch. God had rationed him with stomach ulcers.


Mr. Stick:: I hope you have not those yet.


John Lambert Gibson: 
George Alexander Cruickshank: Would the hon. member do the same thing in connection with cheap Balkan and Russian lumber?


John Lambert Gibson: I think the lumbering industry of British Columbia can compete with any country in the world without protection.


George Alexander Cruickshank: At the prices they charge?


John Lambert Gibson: When the hon. member makes his speech he can put forward that suggestion. It might be a good thing. Some hon. members and certain organizations are campaigning for a higher duty on vegetable oils.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John Lambert Gibson: You must remember that if you are going to protect that sacred cow the cost of food to the Canadian consumer will be increased. You must take your choice.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The same thing with lumber.


John Lambert Gibson: One thing I could never understand is the sales tax on margarine which adds to the cost of living in Canada. Yet all of us are afraid to touch it because we might lose a vote. I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will explain to us why it was necessary to pay 60 cents a pound for the butter that is being imported into the country while, according to a speech made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair), butter is being sold to the British for 36 cents per pound. The Danes and the other Scandinavians must have thought Santa Claus had walked in when the Canadian buyers arrived and said they were really going to town and were ready to pay a proper price. I never expect to be able to put the Minister of Agriculture on the spot, but I would like to have his explanation. I know it will be lucid and fair. I know he will tell us exactly why it was necessary to pay that much per pound.


James Garfield Gardiner: We do not pay that much; they pay duty on it.


John Lambert Gibson: We pay a duty on it, do we?


James Garfield Gardiner: A duty of 12 cents per pound on butter coming in.


John Lambert Gibson: Was the duty there to keep the cost down, or is that another sacred cow I did not know about? Everybody is asking for shorter hours. Everybody wants to get more. This idea is held by the civil service. I wonder what would happen if the farmers said they wanted a five-day week, with time and a half on Saturdays and double time on Sundays. That would be really something. If one of these days the farmers really get organized, and if that kind of money has to be paid for agricultural help, we will certainly have to pay far more for our butter, eggs and milk.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And less for lumber.


John Lambert Gibson: I should think my hon. friend would do better to confine his remarks to the dairying industry, because he is known as an outstanding champion of the farmers of the Fraser valley. In this particular instance, despite the plausible amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), I find I must support the government because I feel their policies are preferable to any alternative that has yet been offered.


Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the main subjects I intend to take up in this debate on the speech from the throne I should like to say a few short words; and I hope I will not be called to order. When the President of France addressed this house during the last session I thought, along with many others, that he made a most excellent speech. But what I enjoyed much more that day was a speech made by you, Mr. Speaker, when you said:
Canada is a bilingual country, and whether we speak in French or English we speak the language of Canada.
For those words we from the province of Quebec offer our sincere thanks. We will never forget that they were the words of one coming from the province of Ontario. With your permission I shall now continue my speech in the language of Canada, in my mother tongue of French.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, may I begin by congratulating the mover of the address in reply (Mr. Cau-chon). I am sure that on October 12 the good people of Beauhamois were happy at the thought that their representative had the honour of moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am convinced that had his constituents been present in the house they would have been all the happier at seeing how tactfully their member had fulfilled his task.

The Address-Mr. Boivin
In his opening remarks he referred to the presence in our midst of Their Royal Highnesses gracious Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh whom we all had the honour of meeting. He linked their visit with that of Their Majesties the King and Queen. May I express -the hope that this latest trip will be the harbinger of a lasting peace, even though the international situation does- not look, as yet, overly promising.
The people of Shefford constituency were grieved by the news of the king's illness, but they rejoice with the whole country over his recovery.
The hon. member from Beauhamois has paid a fine tribute to the Right Hon, Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for his devotion and unceasing toil since he has been leading the destinies of the government. I wish to join in this tribute and to say that the people I represent in this house are proud of our leader and express the hope that he will enjoy good health- and a long life in order that he may, in the interests of the country, successfully complete the useful undertakings that are already well under way.
I also wish, without any further delay, to congratulate the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons) who seconded the address in reply, for his description of conditions in his constituency and area. We might add that, though he has been a- collector of national revenue, a good immigration inspector, an excellent judge, he is above all a true representative of the Yukon and that he takes advantage of that fact to made known the needs of his fellow men.
Having been a member of the House of Commons since 1945, I must admit that I am among those who are greatly interested in the speech from the throne and, on every occasion within the limits of my humble means, I have endeavoured to express my views and those of my constituents. I have always made my observations so as to reflect the views of the people of the county I have the honour to represent here and I want to do the same today.
On listening to the speech from the throne we learned that we have been summoned to attend this second session this year in order to pass a bill under which the government will pay an old age pension to any person 70 years of age or over, as well as a measure to help the provinces to pay a pension to persons between 65 and 70. These long awaited bills, which will become effective as early as January 1, will be welcomed by all the people. In short, we will help citizens in great need of assistance now. It would be


Mr. Harris (Danforth):: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker? Is the hon. member reading his speech? His dear old dad never read a speech
The Address-Mr. Boivin in this House of Commons. He spoke from his heart and his soul. I am rather of the opinion, sir, that the hon. gentleman now addressing this house, and for whom I have great respect, is reading his speech.
(Translation):


Marcel Boivin: -it is to protest against the war effort of our country; they even go so far as to insult those who go forth in their stead, while they themselves remain silent and refuse to see the dazzling light that shines upon the long-drawn battle advocated by the supporters of a holy war.
It must be admitted that our country, though small from the standpoint of population, is great in area, and especially in courage. That is why she has decided to play, according to her means and to the extent of her powers, her noble part by contributing, by that very fact, to the defeat of the communist monster wherever it may raise its head to oppose the democratic ideal and Christian faiths.
Sincerity must be judged not by people's words but by their deeds. Therefore, our government, which enjoys our confidence, realized that the time had come when Canada must do her duty. We will now follow our government and lend it our support. It is high time we should realize this war is not merely a civil war between North Korea and South Korea.
There is only one Korea, the republic of Korea, fighting, as I said earlier, the enemy of the human race. Are we to let it perish in a disaster which would be the prelude to a world war or shall we save our own country by taking the lead and fighting the enemy on bis own territory before he comes to us, by way of Alaska or elsewhere, and puts our cities, our villages, to fire and sword, and massacres our people?
In short, that is the situation. I may add that there are other enemies of the country- perhaps I should rather say people who do not understand the problem and who claim that we are not doing enough. I take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister for his attitude in helping the oppressed as much as possible and in consolidating our own defence. At any rate, we have fulfilled our commitments with the United Nations. We can and should offer to help, according to our means, the armies that are fighting to uphold law, freedom and religion. Finally, I come to the conclusion that the opposition is criticizing without reason our national defence effort.
372	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Boivin
Mr. Speaker, the cost of living has been discussed for several days. Many members of the opposition still seem to want us to think that our country has been the most affected by the cost of living and that prices are higher in Canada than anywhere else. Inflation is not only a national evil; it is indeed international. I listened carefully to the statement made by the Prime Minister when he replied: to the leader of the opposition, and any right-thinking person will admit that as far as the rising cost of living is concerned our government acted in the interests of all. If they had found it necessary to reimpose price controls, they would 'have done so but we all know that price controls would have been disastrous to our national economy.
Mr. Speaker, may I refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) when he spoke about London. I would point out to him that conditions are not the same in different countries.
England lives out of the profits derived from her trade. That country cannot survive without its import and export trade. I much prefer to live on this North American continent even though our present cost of living difficulties have to be overcome. Thank God, we are self-sufficient.
Later the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar quoted from a broadcast delivered in October, 1941, by the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. I.t is true that all families were not -affected in the same way by the cost of living at that time. The larger the family and the lower the income, the heavier the burden that had to be borne. However, one must be honest with oneself and, since those words were spoken by the late Prime Minister, family allowances have been established for the benefit of those who needed, and who now receive, such assistance under social legislation that has been passed by the government of which I am a supporter.
I have listened to my good friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) who apparently meant that the speech from the throne might very well be an electoral program. The electors of this country, having read the speech of the hon. member, must have felt proud. I quote a part of it:
It applies to everything in all the provinces. It applies to nearly all walks ol life. There was something in it for everyone in Canada.
I thank my colleague from the opposition, the member for Cape Breton South for his remarks. We feel proud they were made by him.


The Prime Minister has often said that everything could not be done during one session only, but that given time he would attend to everything, which is another indication that our leader can prove his worth not only by his words but also by his legislation. We are doubly happy to have it stated by the opposition.
Up to now I have been congratulating the government. I now have a few representations to make. Without any further delay, I will speak to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Many members have spoken to him, in this debate, of the excise tax. Today I shall come back to this matter but from a different angle. I refer to the tax on cigarettes, even if I disagree with my colleague from Fort William (Mr. Mclvor).
The Minister of Finance knows that in so far as excise taxes or taxation generally are concerned, there is a saturation point beyond which an increase in taxes brings with it a drop in revenue. In this case, not only have we reached this saturation point but, unfortunately, we have gone much beyond it. That is a mistake which we shall have difficulty in correcting later on. It is now visible and requires immediate remedial action. Otherwise the cigarette manufacturer might as well close shop. If the present state of affairs continues, our people will only smoke smuggled cigarettes or homemade ones which they will have rolled themselves with straw, dry grass and dust.
Mr. Speaker, several of my colleagues who have visited Granby may be inclined to think that I am defending my own interests since the Imperial Tobacco Company has a branch in Granby but such os not my intention, far from it, because cigarettes are manufactured in Montreal by the very same company. The Minister of Finance increases the excise tax on cigarettes year after year. In my own province we now pay 46 cents for a small package. This constant increase encourages the smuggling of American cigarettes, with the result that, in my district, four people out of five now smoke American cigarettes. I doubt very much that most of them entered this country legally. If national revenues derived from the tax on cigarettes now amount to seventy million dollars, they would be even higher if the tax per package were reduced, since sales would be more than double. Such, at any rate, is the opinion of the tobacco producers of this country, and especially of my constituency.

In the municipality of St. Cesaire there are very many tobacco producers but they are now faced with the greatest difficulty in marketing their produce, precisely on account of the high taxes they have to pay. I hope those remarks of mine will be heeded because, by reducing the tax rates, we will enable our people to buy Canadian products, thus helping out our own producers who often see their crop go to waste.
Mr. Speaker, last September, I had the honour of meeting the directors of the Granby and Waterloo branches of the Canadian Legion. They asked me to make representations to the proper authorities in order to obtain an increase in veterans' pensions. I did make these representations as soon as I arrived in Ottawa. I am convinced that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) is looking into the matter and I am sure, being himself a veteran, that he will meet their request satisfactorily.
Mr. Speaker, I have nearly exhausted the time allotted to me, but, if you will permit me, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that our most important industry- the textile industry-is in a very critical position at present.
In order to give you a better idea, let me say that industries of that kind operating in my constituency have only been working at half their capacity since the month of January. Despite this curtailed production, inventories remain high and it is very difficult to sell the products, even at cost. I have studied the situation and I have come to the conclusion that this state of affairs was brought about by the free import of rayon goods and made-up garments. When I went to New York about three weeks ago I found that the textile manufacturers were selling their products below the market price, that is, well below Canadian prices. Our importers have been going and are still going to the American metropolis in order to take advantage of those clearance sales, and every dollar thus spent is a dollar less for the Canadian market. This condition has created unemployment in the textile industry, not only in my home town but throughout Canada. I submit that between 35 and 40 per cent of the textile workers are now unemployed. It must be recognized that this affects the purchasing power in this country in general. If a change is not brought about in the near future, our industries will be in a still more critical condition. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that import quotas such as we had last year should be set up and our textile export markets in the
The Address-Mr. Knight West Indies and other countries should be extended. I suggest that the Department of Trade and Commerce consider immediately the condition of the textile industry in order to give it the help required and solve the problem as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your forbearance and may I add that if the international situation, because of the recent events in Pakistan and Egypt, gets worse we do not know what tomorrow may have in store for us. That is why I hope that my colleagues in this house and all the people of Canada will co-operate with our government in order that we may avoid what unfortunately many countries of the world have known and that we may continue to say: "Canadians, let us safeguard for our own people and our future generations such unity, security and liberty as exist in our country".
(Text):


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, my time is so limited that I think I shall simply confine myself to wishing the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address the courtesy of my congratulations in brief.
Sir, in rising to take part in this debate I shall for a moment focus your attention upon the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I must confess that it was not what I had expected on this occasion, particularly its comparison of prices, largely of commodities in Washington, with those in certain parts of Canada. But it did at least prove that the Prime Minister is well aware of the fact that the main issue before the people of Canada today is the high cost of living. If that speech were meant to convey to the housewives of Canada anything in the form of comfort, I am afraid it failed in its intent, because it may be considered by the country, and particularly by the housewives, that the Prime Minister was, by his speech, defending the high prices already existing in Canada.
I notice that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) does not think much of the housewives of Canada as an economic authority; but we must admit that they are the people perhaps most deeply concerned in this present discussion. After all, it is the housewives of this country, their husbands and families whom we represent in this parliament.
[DOT]374

The Address-Mr. Knight
Let me come to the main object of this speech. The Prime Minister asserted that prices in Britain have risen faster during the recent period than they have here. He dismissed the matter at that, leaving the impression-I am sure unintentionally-that over there prices are now very high. A question relative to the speech would be, what were the prices in Britain before the recent rise to which the Prime Minister referred? What are they now?
Unlike the hon. member for Coast-Capilano I have not been hobnobbing with economists and what may be called financial people, but I have been staying at the homes of British people for a period of five or six weeks up to the last couple of weeks, when I returned here, and may I say that these families live in England, Ireland and Scotland. When I say "Ireland" I mean northern Ireland as being relevant to this discussion. With your permission, sir, and I hope the house will grant it, because as I say my time is limited, I will place on the records of this house certain tables consisting of the prices the Prime Minister quoted and the corresponding prices which I have obtained directly from the old country. I shall then proceed to examine these tables. It is reasonable that the house should ask upon what authority these tables are based, and I should like to explain that here. I have a letter dated October 20, 1951, from Edinburgh. On that date the writer interviewed four people, a grocery store manager, the manager of a bakery, of a dairy and of a butcher shop. The first one is signed by one D. Roberts, who is the manager of a grocery store, Robert Jamieson, 37a War-render Park Road, Edinburgh; the others are equally authentic, and I shall not bother the house with the details.
Now, sir, may I put these tables upon the record?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman leave af the house to place the tables on record?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish the tables printed in Hansard or placed on the table?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Read them.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The prices in these tables are vorked out on the basis of $2.96 to the pound and the Canadian prices in the first table are those supplied by the Prime Minister.

Comparison of British and Canadian Prices
British prices as in Edinburgh, October 20, 1951, Canadian prices as quoted by Mr. St. Laurent in Hansard, October 15, p. 36-37.
British
price
in Canadian Canadian
Article	Quantity	funds	price
		cents	cents
Milk-for children .	.. .quart	3-69	19for adults ...	.. .quart	15-9	19(Milk for 2 adults	and 3 children,	Total, 5 pts. daily)	21-52	47-5Eggs 	59	84Potatoes 	..10 lbs.	22-8	35Tea 	lb.	59	89Coffee 	. A&P lb.	71	94Chase & Sanborn lb.	106Sugar 	lb.	7-4	11-2Butter 	lb.	36-9	68Cheese 	lb.	19-6	49Bread 	30	-oz. loaf	7-38	24 oz.	5-9	15-18Sirloin steak 	lb.	44-28	134Additional comparisons	Margarine 	lb.	17-2	45Bacon 	lb.	46-7	80-125Pork chops 	lb.	41-82	79Pork tenderloin .	lb.	44-28	110With regard to	milk I	may say	that my
daughter and her husband and three little children buy five pints of milk every morning, and the price of the milk comes to something like 21-52 cents every day. I said the Canadian prices in the first table are the prices given by the Prime Minister. I think in one or two cases he had them a little low, but I realize that prices rise so fast it is fairly difficult to keep up with them. It is rather interesting to note that with respect to bread in Britain they have a 30-ounce loaf and it costs 7-38 cents. Working that out on the basis of the Canadian 24-ounce loaf the British loaf of 24 ounces would cost 5-9 cents. The price of bread today is quoted around 15 cents in Ottawa. I may say for the information of the house that my wife and I personally paid 18 cents for a loaf of sliced white bread last Saturday.


James Sinclair: How much do they get in wages over there?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: 
Douglas Charles Abbott: The per capita for meat is 134 pounds.


Angus MacInnis: Who is eating it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are not all in the upper income brackets. Give the per capita figures in England, if you are interested in that.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I wish I had the time-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Give the per capita figures for meat in England. That will not take forty minutes.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I shall answer that question in part by reading a letter written by a university student in Great Britain to a friend of his who is a professor in a university in this country. The question has been asked: How much are they allowed? This letter states:
We are allowed but two shillings and three pence worth of meat per week, but as meat is subsidized and the price is reasonable, the quantity is sufficient. D.-
His wif e.
-and I could not afford beef in Canada. We hadn't had a roast of beef since we were married; but we have had a small roast every week end since our arrival in this country. Our roast has lasted for two and sometimes three days.
Then follows a somewhat uncomplimentary remark about the Minister of Finance, which I shall not read.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I got that letter, too.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I shall deal with it in more detail at some other time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Both a small roast and a small appetite.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I have discussed at some length the matter of prices in Great Britain, and I have done so not only because I am interested in the British economy but because I did not think it fair that the impression should be left by hon. members on the Liberal side that prices in Great Britain were exceptionally high.
I suggest it is not fair to say in argument that price controls and subsidies would not

The Address-Mr. Knight work in this country and in this economy of plenty, when we produce large amounts of things the British have to import. Neither is it true that the argument, as it has been stated here, to the effect that the British people can no longer tax themselves to any increased amount in order to increase subsidies to keep down prices, can be applied to Canada; because we know that an entirely different supply situation obtains in this country.
On motion of Mr. Knight the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we will take up the resolution concerning old age security. If the debate on that resolution is concluded, we will proceed with Bills Nos. 9 and 8, respecting the Toronto harbour commissioners and the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act, respectively.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on October 12, 1951.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 25, 1951